The Australian has opted to deliver the bi-monthly Victorian state Newspoll result for November-December before the holiday period rather than after. It finds Labor’s two-party lead unchanged on 57-43, despite their primary vote dropping two points to 41 per cent while the Coalition remains steady on 35 per cent. The Australian report says the Greens are “steady” on 14 per cent, although this is in fact down a point on last time. John Brumby’s approval rating is up two points to 51 per cent, and his lead has preferred premier has increased from 52-27 to 54-26.
Reflections on the Miracle of Democracy at Work in the Greatest Nation on Earth
Newspoll: 57-43 to Labor in Victoria
Daily Mail
Elsewhere
Policy
Partners
Independent news, blogs and commentary on politics, media, business, the environment and life.
Copyright © 2012 Private Media Pty Ltd, Publishers of Crikey. All Rights Reserved.
Web development by Valegro
Editor: Jason Whittaker
Publisher: Eric Beecher
Political Correspondent: Bernard Keane
Level 6, 22 William St, Melbourne, 3000
Ph: 1800 985 502
Fax: (03) 8623 9975
138 Comments
Oh well, three polls in the same range; maybe Brumby really is that far in front after all.
If things fail to improve for the Liberals then I think Ballieu will be knifed sometime early next year. While the Victorian Liberals havn’t shown the same tendency for regicide as say, the NSW Liberals, I think they will really have no other choice. Ballieu just doesn’t have what it takes.
Dugong, can you name any obvious alternative leaders to Ted?
I’m from Victoria and I can’t think of another state lib with any media profile at all
SA Lib leader Isobel Redmond shows you can pick any old unknown to lift an opposition slump in the polls.
Terry Moulder seems to do ok. Also has a profile because of the transport problems.
But a better choice would be Peter Ryan, the Nat Leader. Wont happen though.
Labor will win in Vic and SA. Can’t see either opposition being ready for government as yet.
But lose in Tasmania and NSW Gary. the good news is they found me after all these years!
Peter Ryan, Haaaaa Haaaa Haaa, please stop its to much.
The sad reality is that the opposition in Victoria are disfunctional. They spend to much time trying to shore up the lunatic right that they are just becoming increasingly irrelevant. Its like they never learn’t politics 101.
Perception is everything and they don’t have one good performer. no team work etc. When the ALP were shamshed by Kennett what did they do. They drafted in at a byelection Brumby who took all the hard yards, worked, tried to win back the country, stopped the decline, took the fall, Bracks came through and then lifted them over the line with a jag of a win then handed it back to Brumby. Teamwork and dedication. The opposition keep talking about cycles, gone finished forget it, there won’t be a conservative government in Victoria at either level for at least 3 more cycles.
The problem is in Vic is that there are a hell of a lot of seats that are under 4%. The libs got quite big swings last time but in their own seats, so it didn’t change things much. I think they lost 8 by memory
Graph up
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/state-politics/john-brumby-topples-mike-rann-as-the-countrys-most-popular-alp-premier/story-e6frgczx-1225812247777
Whenever I read these graphs it always amazes me that the Nats get 3%. They are the rump on the rump and yet they still get this bizarre amount of representation. Gerrymander!
I used to think the same about WA.
Oppositions don’t win elections. Governments lose them.
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/states/vic/2006pendulum.txt
Libs need a swing of 6.5% to gain gov which i just can’t see. In fact i would put the seats up to napthine in play for ALP potential gain, especially with school funding, infrastucture imp in area.
Nothing to see, yet again!
I stand by what I said last time:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2009/11/02/newspoll-57-43-to-labor-in-victoria-2/comment-page-1/#comments
The rebuilding of the state over the last ten years has been impressive, in health and education particularly. NAPLAN involves 20 tests. Victoria came first of all the states in 10 of them and second in nine. (“Victoria takes a bow in national literacy and numeracy tests”, Herald Sun, 19/12/2009
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/victoria-takes-a-bow-in-national-literacy-and-numeracy-tests/story-e6frf7kx-1225811903504)
This shows that, contrary to the bleating of the IPA and The Australian, spending money on education is not “throwing money at the problem”, but a valuable means to achieving results. The public sees it, but the posters at the Andrew Bolt Forum still do not.
Nothing surprising about this poll. the Brumby Government is very stable and as 2010 moves on with the roll out of the Voctorian Transport Plan and the school building program, both the federal one and the state Building Futures program i would expect to see the Government’s position to improve.
Even the issue of street violence is being tackled, again removing a potential issue for the Liberals.
I just cannot find an issue that the Liberals have any traction on.
mb,
You forgot to mention the Brimbank Council corruption circus has completely fizzled. The worst they found was that a few people waved their hands and spoke very loudly to one another.
One of the tactics used against the Victorian government is to attack it as a big-taxing government. This tactic either uses gross figures of total revenue changes since 1999, thus ignoring increases in the CPI, population and the size of the economy, or picks on particular taxes that have risen dramatically; e.g., property taxes, which have naturally risen in line with the growth in property values. However, this tactic does not seem to have any impact on voting intention. I think I know why. I have checked figures from the 2009-10 Victorian budget and the ABS website.
In 1998-99, Victoria’s total tax revenue was $8.794 billion. In 2007-08, it was $13.213 billion. That looks like a large increase, but it is not when you take account of inflation, economic growth and population growth. In any case, the largest part of state revenue does not come from tax, but from Commonwealth grants.
In 1998-99, the Gross State Product was $151.213 billion. Government cash receipts (taxes, charges, grants, etc) represented 13.3 per cent of this total. Victoria’s population was 4,712.200, meaning income per head after state revenue was $27,822.
In 2007-08, the GSP was $259.415 billion. Government cash receipts represented 14.2 per cent of this total. Victoria’s population was 5,297,600, meaning income per head after state revenue was $42,015. That is an increase of 51 per cent. The CPI rose by 31.3 per cent in the nine years from December 1998 to December 2007, so the real increase per head was 15 per cent. In other words, even when allowance is made for the increased proportion of total income that goes on state services, the remainder is in real terms still greater than it was under the previous government. In essence, we are through the democratic process allocating an increased proportion of our income to public services, not only without suffering any decline in our own standard of living as a result, but also with enjoying an increase in our own standard of living.
So whatever individual charges have increased by in nominal terms, the average Victorian is a lot better off now than 10 years ago. Besides, the average Victorian sees the result of the tax expenditure.
The Liberals are not going to win by fighting the 1992 election every four years.
The people sufficiently swayed to change their vote from ALP at the last election seem to be according to the polls switching to the Greens and this means that the ALP will get most of that back on preferences in the vast majority of Legislative Assembly seats where the Greens vote is distributed as preferences. It will however have an effect on the Legislative Council and is bad news of varying degrees for the ALP in the seats where the Greens vote is not distributed.
How is the LegCo working in Victoria? I understand that it’s a Labor/Green majority council isn’t it?
18
The ALP can pass most of what it wants with the Greens and/or Coalition and can block with only the DLP.
And that’s working fairly harmoniously is it?
In every Upperhouse Region the Greens either won or came 6th, they were not distributed in any,,
The one rumour that I can throw in the mix is that the conservatives have worked out that if thier preferences keep electing ALP before the Greens then with these type of numbers the ALP could quite coincievably get a majority.
Therefore they are saying, if we are giving the Greens Preferences in lower house seats, (Brunswick, Richmand, Melb federally etc) why don’t we tip a few more to the Greens in the Upper house. Can’t in any way effect the number of Coalition members, only lower the ALP and invcrease the cross benches.
The trouble is of course that in the areas where this is possible you have the National Party rump who think that the Greens are somehow morally bad. Ryan famously said in the last election that the Greens would be put last no matter what. They now realise that in the Council the Greens are worth their wieght in Gold as it makes the Coalition at least a little bit relevant.
As we all know the Upper House as with the Senate is all about ‘following the preferences’.
To make any of the previous point possible there also needs to be a reduction in the number of micro parties, and independants from the right. Word around the traps is that the last election showed many of these parties just how hard it was to get 4% and therefore funding and that this years federal election could exhaust them and their finances. Even the Dems are broke and were looking to Higgins for 4% and some money.
The less right wing minor parties increases the primary Coalition vote and therefore brings this strategy into play!
In 2006 Liberal preferences would not have helped the Greens because either they were fighting the Libs or Nats for the final seat or preferences from FF got the ALP over the line regardless. That is not to say that an increase the crossbench at the expense of the ALP would not be helpful to the Greens if it was a closer race between them and the ALP because it would.
You have absolutely picked the weakness of this Coalition idea, its the conservative preferences from their loopy right that usually decides the last spot and the Coalition can’t control them. There is no way that the FF DLP CDP CEC nutters would ever put the greens after any other party.
However its an interesting idea and there is some merit to the idea that a upper house not controlled by the ALP could be good for the ALP. They behaved well and reformed the upper house last time, but we all remember what happened when Howard got the control of the Senate, it just takes pressure off good government and to some extent restraint.
Apparently, Michael Kroger has suggested that the Liberal front bench do some holiday season “soul searching” over the party’s dismal polling. Baillieu has responded by saying that Kroger is entitled to his opinion, that he utters it often, and that he’s perfectly entitled to stand for parliament but hasn’t.
The ALP reforms of the upper house last time were one of the ballsiest thing done in the name of democracy. Fancy giving away a senate majority and losing several senators. The Libs would never have done it. In return they have the greens, and DLP holding the balance. The greens have been nothing but obstructionary and but a small senmblance to their federal counterparts. For the first 2 years it was the nationals that assisted them to get things through the legislative council.
Barber is a twit, penechook only slightly better, can’t remember the third one.
They tried blocking a graffitti bill, the wind farms in gipsland etc etc……….
Centaur my understanding of the Labor VIC upper house reform was that rather than merely being “ballsy” they were taking a longer term view – realising that once the pendulum swung and the Liberals got back into office, the Liberals would themselves have an upper house majority, making opposition even harder for Labor.
Seeing the strength of the greens in metropolitan Victoria and the absence of an equivalent on the right, Labor designed a chamber they thought would guarantee them essentially a permanent Labor/Greens majority – through government and opposition. The “socialist majority” Peter Costello used to crap endlessly on about re the senate. Whether this will turn out to be the case or not remains to be seen.
So no, on the ballsy scale it is a long way short of Steele Hall ending the Playmander in South Australia and knowingly putting his (liberal) party into opposition for a decade or so.
You have to give kudos to Bracks and Hulls for upper house (Council, not Senate) reform. The first time they gain control ever (apart from two weeks in the 80s), they legislate to make it harder to retain control.
More broadly, nobody knows what the Victorian Libs stand for really. Brumby is all over the centre ground, the Libs can either be a weak version of him (in which case they need a charismatic leader, and some luck, some labor scandal) or go loony right, in which case they’ll be rejected by most sensible Vics.
The greens have reached a plateau for now, it seems. One day they’ll win an inner city seat, and that will seem more momentous than it really is.
Thats right wilful in the previous 128 years the ALP had control of hteupper house for two weeks, that was until peter bachelor lost on a challenge.
There is a story here, now I had a friend who was handing out for the ALP in some back woods town near Benalla for this very byelection. there were only about 85 votes and at the end of the day he went to scrutineer. NOw remember this was a byelection because of questions of the previous process.
Anyway he mantioned to the returning officer that there were not many people through the doors, and the returning officer frankly admitted that some of the voters didn’t bother turning up they just phoned him and he filled in their vote for them. Banjo’s and all.
26
The Victorian ALP seems to have a mentality that the decisions of Cabinet/Caucus should be implemented without interference. The ALP must really regret not saying that the MLCs elected in 2002 were elected for 8 year terms and therefore should stay in office until 2010 when the PR reform would be implemented.
The Greens have not been obstructionist but have tried to improve the legislative outcomes as well as have proper inquires.
28
The Greens are polling up to one and a half times what they did at the 2006 election and so talk of a plateau is premature. The increase in the Green vote is likely to help in the battle for more MLCs next year as well as the three potential MLAs. The Greens are however unlikely to get to the 10 needed for parliamentary party status, unfortunately.
10, Tom?!?!?
Sheesh, and I wondered where folks like Frank got their talking points from.
I’m confident that the Greens will increase their vote nicely this next election, but Brumby’s running a popular ship, and isn’t giving cause for any dramatic victories (as is rather more likely in NSW this time around). I think the Greens stand a good chance of knocking off the DLP’s Kavanagh in Western Victoria (which they were unlucky not to do last time around anyway), and have a longer-shot chance of knocking off Bronwyn Pike in the Assembly (though I think Brian Walters would have been better suited to the Senate than a lower-house race). If they can win either of those, plus not lose Colleen Hartland (who was lucky to win last time around), then they should be positively thrilled.
Anything more is simply dreaming.
I’ve gotta say though that Victorian Labor should be totally unsurprised when the Greens get obstructionist on them. The Victorian branch never misses an opportunity to mount a smear campaign against the Greens, and never fails to stoop to the lowest common denominator – and then turn around and wonder why they have the worst working relationship with the Greens of any Labor branch in Australia.
As far as the Liberal leadership, it’s plainly obvious that the only alternative leader they’ve got around at the moment is Terry Mulder, and as much as I think highly of him, it’s also pretty obvious that he doesn’t seem to want what would be a poisoned chalice. Brumby’s a smart, competent and popular Premier, and he isn’t giving the Liberals any room to move – no matter who leads them. Mulder would probably do fairly well against most other governments, but there’s no one they’ve got at the moment who could successfully take on Brumby, and I suspect he knows that.
I suspect that Baillieu will take the Liberals to another drubbing in 2010, and you’ll see one of the next generation (O’Brien, Guy, etc.) stepping up in the middle of the next term, when Brumby might have had time to make some missteps.
Rebecca,
I know you have your Green’s sunglasses on full blast bullbutter, but the Greens never miss an opportunity to smear. It seems to be coded into their DNA.
Since when have the Greens smeared Labor?
For what it’s worth, I don’t think even the Liberals are capable of stooping as low as Victorian Labor when it comes to dirty campaigning. Labor’s campaigns against the Greens in Albert Park and Les Twentyman in Kororoit could never be described as anything but Machiavellian.
I can pretty safely say you’ll never see any Green candidate pulling a stunt like that. It seems to be something limited the Victorian branch, though – even NSW Labor, as wacky as they are, don’t seem to have anything on the Victorians in that respect.
Rebecca,
The Greens are the gold medal smearists of Australian politics. Nary a day passes. Apparently, Greens supporters absorb it through their Muesli.
I’d pick Brunswick as the most likely Green gain in the Vic lower house. They got a big swing there in 2006 (margin now ~3%), and this time there’s no sitting ALP member because he’s retiring. Gotta be easier than knocking off a minister.
It’ll be interesting to see what Richmond’s Socialist councillor gets if he runs again. He got pretty OK in 2006 (compared to the background noise they usually get), and much better in the local govt elections more recently. That was the main reason for the swing to Labor – it was actually a Greens-Socialists swing, and I’m guessing the Socialist prefs went more Labor’s way.
BOP,
The ALP’s Jane Garrett will kick Greens arse. Fantastic candidate.
The Greens are dreaming.
The Greens winning Brunswick!
Fat Chance – i totally agree with GG Jane Garrett is an excellant candidate and i reckonm she might win on primaries.
Considering the Greens totally flopped in two by-elections (Albert Park & Higgins) with one of the major parties missing i just cannot see them winning Brunswick.
The Greens may go close in Melbourne or Richmond but as i will explain closer to election day i really cannot see the Greens winning anything in the Green House.
I’m not surprised the Greens didn’t do well in the Albert Park by-election. Compare to the Victoria Park one in WA around the same time; they both featured a premier quitting while the Labor govt was still popular, and Labor won comfortably. Once Brumby gets the boot in 2014 or whenever, a subsequent Melbourne or Richmond by-election could look very different (again, compare with WA’s last attorney-general’s seat).
Also, the Vic Greens are several years younger than the WA or Tas versions, so they’ve got a bit of catching up to do. Both those states have had Greens MP’s since the 1980′s, all the way back to 1984 if you count Jo Vallentine; the Vic Greens didn’t even contest the 1999 election outside a few seats and have only had MP’s since 2006.
Greensborough Growler: It’s interesting that you seem to be able to rant on to kingdom come about the Greens being “smearists”, but you can’t name a single time when the Greens have actually smeared a Labor candidate.
It’s something which this particular branch of the Labor Party seems to be a bit slow in learning: if you’re going to take an “anything goes as long as it increases our odds of winning” approach to otherwise sympathetic potential competition, you’d better hope to hell you don’t wind up relying on their votes to pass legislation.
I agree that there’s no chance the Greens will win Brunswick though. It’s a long-term target – the Greens didn’t even run particularly close in 2006 (against an obvious hack), and Labor’s been smart and selected a good candidate this time around, which in my book makes it even less likely than them.
mexicanbeemer: I think you’ve just done another case of non-Greens people building up ridiculous expectations and then claiming it means something when they’re not met. The only people in the universe who seriously thought the Greens were in with a chance in Albert Park were in the Labor Party (as seen in their ridiculous own-goal of antagonising the hell out of people whose votes they needed in order to win a seat they were never going to lose), and Clive Hamilton was always the most extreme long-shot in Higgins – much longer than Organ was in Cunningham. As I said, I think Melbourne is well within potential reach, and I can see Richmond and maybe Brunswick coming into play down the line if they can do that, but any more than Melbourne this time around is wishful thinking.
Rebecca i cannot remember the last time i gave the Greens any real chance of winning something, yes i thought they would do better in Higgins than they did but that was because the ALP did not contest.
Gee Rebecca, there’s so much Greens abuse it’s hard to know where to start.
Here’s a random post where anyone who disagrees with Milne is a hypocrite and/or a denier. I read this crap all the time. No wonder the Greens are treated with contempt.
http://beyondzeroemissions.org/node/182
32
The Greens came within about 1% in Eastern Metro.
If the Greens had had a percent or so more in Northern Victoria and Liberal preferences then they could have won.
Western Victoria was decided on ALP preferences which might well do the same again but the micro party vote and preferences that lead to the ALP vote deciding the result between the Greens and the DLP may well not happen again.
Brunswick 2006 53.63%-46.37% 2CP. Marginal.
Melbourne 2006 52.01%-47.99% 2CP. Marginal.
Richmond 2006 53.64%-46.36% 2CP. Marginal.
Greens Legislative Assemble total 10.04%. Current poll 14%.
Apply uniform swing ALP to Greens.
PS 37
The distribution of the Socialist Councillor`s preferences were 1284 Greens to 496 ALP.
http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/state2006distributionRichmondDistrict.html
mexicanbeemer: It’s one of the most ridiculously wealthy seats in the country. It was theoretically in the realm of possibility, but it would be have been one of the most entertaining upsets in Australian political history. It’s a bit rich to suggest that the failure to pull that off says anything much in particular.
Greensborough Growler: So, because Milne has the gall to criticise the ALP’s policy on climate change, she’s a “gold medal smearist”? It’s an interesting attitude towards dissent that you’ve got there.
There’s plenty of things by both Labor and Liberal that I disagree with (and will say so), but dirty campaigning is dirty campaigning, and what Victorian Labor did to Les Twentyman and the Albert Park Greens is right up there with the disgusting stuff the CLP pulled to defeat Labor’s Ken Parish back in ’94.
Rebecca~ True Higgins would have been a very big upset but considering the political climate of the month leading up to the Higgins By-election the Greens underperformed.
Rebecca,
Keep posting you’ll convince yourself of your moral virtue soon. But, you won’t convince anyone else.
My point is and was the Greens are the champions of smear, abuse and innuendo simply because they do it on a non stop basis. Crying becasue you get your own treatment back in spades or because the other sides are more effective at revealing the truth about the Greens shortcomings and lack of policy clarity, is rather pathetic.
Occasionally I do go Off, this sort of purile nonsense adds nothing to the debate, GG is one of the worst offenders along with our dear Frank, GG has shown in this thread the ability to start it, see it as a bit of sport and not have any substantial points to make.
The questions I have for GG is
1 ‘what do you actually think the Greens with one quarter of the ALP vote and one third of the Vic COalition vote should do?
2 How should they express thier disagreement,
3 How should they respond from the Newmann type attack of the last few cycles.?
Finally, ‘How would you respond if in their possition?
So GG, by-election results are relevent now?
Before the Green vote at a by-election hasn’t mattered because only one major party runs.
Now you have decided that the Greens will never win anything because they didn’t win Albert Park/Higgins where the entire Green Party knew that they were not going to win?
Maybe you should keep to the same line if you actually want to convince people outside the ALP.
Growler, your all bark and no bite.
By the way, I am not a Green member or supporter. When I see someone arguing that black is white I just get annoyed for some strange reason.
Barking,
You’re the one that prides itself on coming onto PB and starting fights. Your self confessed trolling hardly gives you any credibility. So “off” away.
Dave,
Not sure what your smoking, but it’s not helping you write even vaguely coherernt posts. How about you write what you think and leave me to write what I think. That will certainly work for me.
I rest my case!
The Barkingtroll fesses up.
I Barking
Posted Saturday, December 19, 2009 at 12:22 pm | Permalink
Well I feel better, got a bit of frustration out there and caught a few ALP hacks at the same time, Always a pleasure gentlemen, and Oh I do the same thing on Andrew Bolts site. Its even more fun. I recommend it. Just hit and run, I don’t even bother hanging around, Its so predictable they go off. Just suggest that Bolts is not all the Messiah thing that they think he is,, or Better Say that Al Gore is the Messiah and bang, off like a Hong Kong Sky rocket.
Bye
Ok GG, I’ll write it so that even you can understand it.
Whenever a Green or non major party supporter talks about how well their party should do/has done at a byelection (Cunningham, Fremantle), you and your mates say it doesn’t matter because it was a byelection.
Now you are saying that the Greens are hopeless because they didn’t win Albert Park and Higgins. I dont know a single Green that thought that the Greens would/could win either seat.
So what are you arguing today? that byelection results can affect a general election or not?
And I know as someone supporting the Vic ALP personal attacks are in your blood, but can you at least TRY to attack an arguament now and then?
Dave,
You start off with bright intentions in your first sentence and then it’s downhill all the way.
Paras 2 and 3. Never said either. Therefore, your whole conclusion is crap.
Tip “You and and your mate’s sez” is a poor line of argument. Some might say you’re trying to fit someone up for something they never said.
As I said earlier, I’ll write what I think and you can write what you think.
You and your mates=you, Frank, Psesphos, and other ALP posters here.
Dave,
So the fact I never said what you said I said is of no consequence to you. Verballing people is not a way to win an argument or get any respect.
Should BillPosters be prosecuted?
Dave i can name one Green
Bob Brown
I meant a Green from Victoria
At least Mexicanbeemer and Frank are capable of a discussion.
Attempting to have a discussion with Greensborough Growler, on the other hand, is like talking to BlogWarBot. No matter what the question, you can be pretty much guaranteed it’s going to be met with “the Greens are evil!”, and he hasn’t got a damn thing to actually back any of his rants up.
Rebecca,
Good to see you’ve got your daily dose of abuse out of your system. Namecalling abuse is such a Greens thing to do.
Rebecca~ Politics is a bit like fopotball, there is a lot of passion and sure i cantake an extreme position but i actually like my ideas being tested by others and like reading other people’s views.
A closed mind is a dead mind.
Ditto here, mexicanbeemer.
The point gg misses is that most people involved in politics have the betterment of the country as their main objective. Now most of us would agree that the coalition are run by vested interests etc, but hey we have met lots of them and Malcolm Turball for example, Brain like a planet, supported a Republic, couldn’t go the monty on Global Warming, a man of great character.
There is little point just slagging people off, if someone doesn’t give up after a few jibs then its about news and current affairs. i stay on here because there is gold burried under alot of the nonsense.
The next cycle of elections are important, we are seeing the shift to a long term Fed ALP. The States are moving to the opposition. This is a historic trend. Victoria is different, However, land planning issues, health, water, Melb 2020 etc are the areas where they will fall. A upperhouse with Greens in the Balance of power will probably prolong the Government. When the opposition finally get the green chairs again there is no doubt that they will have a hostile upper house. They will have to deal with the ALP or the Greens. Now that is an interesting thought. Good luck Mr Mulder, but it does give an insight into the conduct or the possible conduct of the Coalition. Just a thought, but GG try and think beyond the slag, we all do it but it gets tiresome after a while.
Rebecca
Glad to see you agree that you enjoy your ideas being debated and ideas tested – and keep an open mind.
I think we all agree robust debate is healthy.
However, unfortunately some people like G.Growler resort to the personal attack and name calling. Once you realise that and don’t allow them to distract you from your train of thought, rational and robust debate is possible.
Another thing I learned from this site is that it helps if you have a lot of patience with and tolerance for fools.
Barking,
Fine words of self delusion in 66 but you expect everyone to forgive and forget your self confessed trolling in 54. It is a terrible thing when someone uses your own words back at you to highlight the discrepancies between what you say and what you do.
Rebecca,
Another one screaming blue murder when their hypocrisy is exposed. Too much tippling of the cooking sherry can do that to you! Maybe, if you put your own name in place of mine, you’d be closer to the truth of the matter.
Peter Young,
Another poster that has risen without trace.
I’m impertinent to your blandishments.
The ALP in Vic have reponded to the ‘Alcohol fuelled Violence’ in classic ALP fashion. More laws and calls for the ‘cracking down on loutish behaviour.’
There is of course a big part of this in neutralising the Coalitions attack on Law and Order.
Why oh Why don’t Baillieu and Ryan come out and attack the ALP for Taking Money form the Alcohol Lobby. Oh Thats right they are sponsored by the Alcohol Lobby, just like the ALP.
A bit like the Casino thing where it appeared that the Coalition did a back flip over the number of machines they supported.
A far more effective reponse to the Alcohol Fuelled Violence would of course be to have a “Less Alcohol less Violence’ stance, however this could ge down like a lead balloon with the ‘sponsor’ (AHA, etc) and could be made to look a bit prudish by the Media. Lets face it, they get a fair bit of space from adverting for alcohol.
Nice strawman Borking. Any statistics to verify that “alcohol fuelled violence” is any more prevalent than it has been for years?
The way to drastically reduce the alcohol fuelled violence is to find a way to effectively enforce the laws against selling alcohol to intoxicated persons and then implement it. Limits on the number of units of alcohol per purchase, require large premises to devote a minimum proportion of their service areas to non-alcoholic drinks and legal limits (like .05 but higher) on the levels of intoxication allowed for purchase of alcohol, presence on a licensed premises and in a public place and have enforcement thereof.
Tom the first and best~ you are correct therefore if the police increased their petols of pubs and clubs you would see an impovement.
By the nature of Pubs one expects the odd dust up but it does appear that during the last decade we became a little lazy at monitoring
GG,
I agree that the actual biffo is not much changed, I was talking about the media’s beat up of the issue.
However, the rest of the post stands.
I agree with Tom the First and the Best and Mexicanbeemer, the trouble is that the Police don’t really want to waste to many resources, the ALP and the Coalition do recieve large sponsorships from the industry and whilst they are both trying to get the ‘tough on crime’ lead, they don’t want to be seen as prudish.
I highly doubt that Brumby or any other Premier is going to seriously crack down on alcohol consumption along the lines suggested here any time soon – for the reason that it’s an obvious electoral loser.
Most of the country enjoys a drink, and any legislation along these lines would be rightly whacked around for nannystateism. Just because the temperance movement has updated its rhetoric for the times doesn’t make them actually popular.
Rebecca the current laws are actually very tough but the government has become lazy in enforcing them, now i am not saying restrict drinking, i am saying restrict anti social behaviour which has little to do with drink and more to do with bogans looking to cause trouble.
An extract from one of many articles which cites a drop in crime levels and a rise in the POLICING of alcohol fuelled crime. (Note there is nothing to substantiate a claim that there is a rise in alcohol fuelled crimes, just a rise in the policiting of it).
So it doesn’t look like a government which isn’t acting because it’s in the thrall of the alcohol industry.
As someone who recently completed my RSA course, one of the first things we’re told is that, no matter how vigilant we are, we will serve alcohol to someone who is drunk.
This is because alcohol has a delayed reaction. The person you are serving may look bright eyed and bushy tailed now, but in ten minutes time they could be obviously drunk.
I’ve marshalled sporting events and I’ve seen it happen – counted the number of drinks someone in the crowd has consumed, told them that that’s probably enough, they’ve looked fine…half an hour later had to physically remove them.
BTW, if anyone’s going to argue with the crime stats, please do your own googling and use some facts. Your own gut feelings and accusations of corruption are not enough.
mb,
The role of Government is to make the laws. Enforcement is a Police matter and I presume they set their priorities based on the best allocation of resources. So, accusing the Government of being “lazy” is BS.
I’m sure there is a perception that violence is rife. However, I think it is more to do with CC TV footage being played on Youtube. The “blues” have always happened. It is just we now have pictures in graphic colour that shows what happens. Some people are horrified. Similarly, violence that happens in say Sydney is highlighted on the news as if it is happening in Melbourne. Suddenly, people feel insecure.
My contention is that “alcohol fueled violence is no more or less a problem than it has always been. The “booze” culture of Australians has been around since the First Fleet.
GG,
In many ways you are absolutely correct for i go out many times and don’t see violence.
When i say the Government has been lazy i am using that term as short hand for the over all response from police command and the court system.
The problem with this debate and similar ones is the media tend to get existed and start pushing lines without getting their facts straight.
The Goverment already has very tough legistration on its books that copuld be used to pull those clubs that tolerate violence.
Most pubs and clubs would support the cowboys being brought into line. the thing many dills in the media don’t understand is Governments act on advise based on evidence, i also suspect the media spend a lot of time playing to the democraphics of their readsership and viewers.
Another factor is some of the violence is a result of the homeless or mentally ill now i know our media has problems telling a straight story but there is an underbally in our soceity made up of about 5% but this is the crunch the media will one day crap on about the Government spending on welfare then next day complain the Government is not spending enough.
The answer to alcohol fuelled violence: 1.statewide education in schools year 10 to 12 by police on the perrils of drinking to excess and that people will be arrested on the spot and have a criminal conviction (that will stay on record for 1 year) this will prohibit them from many employment opportunities/career moves etc.
2. An increase police presence, new permamnent small outstations with lock up facilities- instant arrest overnight, heavy fine $500
3. a down grading of recreational drugs such as exctasy to class B. This is is by far more prefereable to alcohol, virtuallt no violence and a handful of reported deaths world wide.
Granted there have been attacks on Aussie soil. But those incidents happened decades before what I may refer to here as the Modern Age of Terrorism. Defined as contemporary Islamic terrorism beginning with 911, through the London tubeway bombings, Bali and Madrid etc.
Fortunately Australia has thus far escaped direct embroilment on domestic soil. Though our national contribution to the Iraq fiasco, and our government acquiescence to the US’s unreasonable detainment-without-charge of Muslim, David Hicks, must certainly have increased our risk of and exposure to possible terrorist reprisal.
I beg your pardon. Wrong thread.
My work occasionally leads me to look at historic newspapers. Earlier this year I was looking at papers from 1851 for background on that year’s bushfires, and it was apparent from the other stories to be seen that public alarm over alcohol-related violence in central Melbourne has been with us for at least 158 years.
Blair,
Great work, my personal interest is Roman History, If I had a dollar for every time there was a shit fight during the Republic/empire I would be laughing all the way to the bank. Reminds me of when I was young.
Thats the whole point of this debate, its bull.
However, heres the rub., In the rush to get the ‘tough on crime’ ticket, the majors are again rushing to the bottom.
‘Ducks his head for the onslaught of abuse from likely suspects.’
The Greens Party failure to win Higgins probably has more to do with the fact that, just as the Liberals did, they voted against the only serious attempt presented to the Australian Parliament to actually do something about climate change. So as best I can tell the Greens Party candidate and the Liberal Party candidate were both supporting doing nothing.
84
No, the Greens did not win Higgins because it has too many rusted on Liberal voters.
It will be interesting to see how the negotiations between the Greens and ALP go on with 25-40 % as the starting point.
The Vic State Governments attempts at selling the COAL to the India etc makes it hard to envisage anyone falling for the old, ‘Its the ALP who are most committed to Climate Change’. Listening to some of the attempts here, it can only be baiting.
I know most of the journos are on holidays now, but things are still going on in the non-western world, eg Iran, Thailand and Africa to name a few places. Just compare the Al Jazeera english website to local news content:
http://english.aljazeera.net/
I found the Iranian situation particulalry interesting. As always Juan Cole also has a good coverage of Mid-east events:
http://english.aljazeera.net/
As for Oz I agree with the comments on a trend towards Labor Federal and Liberal State governemnts. However I think SA, like Victoria, will see Labor relected.
If you go to the Country Alliance web site they have candidates for two of the regional/rural areas, no-one for Northern. They are just anti-green did apreference split between the ALp and the Coalition last time, averaged about 1.5% not sure why they bother. I don’t think they would take one vote from the Greens and as for they line of keeping Green radicals out of the Upper house, not much problem in the bush.
“What you can do
Are you sick and tired of the attacks on country people and country life by city-centric pollies and urban based greenies ?
You can help us work towards ensuring better representation of rural areas by joining us online by clicking here or completing and sending us our application form (click here to download it in Word version) or (click here to dowload it in PDF version) to:
Country Alliance
Reply Paid 253
MITCHAM VIC 3132
(no stamp needed)
Or email us with your details and we will send one to you. If you wish to speak with us, please call us on (03) 9017 6119 or mobile 0425 746 066.
Memberships and donations to Country Alliance are tax deductable
Click here to find out more. ”
Now let me see, Mitcham is?
Barking,
Most Greens supporters live within 10ks of the CBD. Does this mean they have a personal affinity with droughts, floods and deforestation.
Tom the Greens received swings to them in the Liberal booths and swings against them in the ALP booths.
GG the Greens have two areas of strenght in Victoria, one is the inner City and the other is the area around St Andrews/Kinglake down to the Dandenong ranges.
mb,
The only seats they ever mention winning are inner suburban ones.
Barking
I once met the guy who was instrumental in starting Country Alliance up (don’t know if he’s still involved).
Very much the inner city bushie type, with a farm at Mansfield. Also very much a big noter (“as I was saying to the Premier’ etc – to a group of people who knew the Premier as a humble backbencher).
They like dressing up in Akubras, Drizabones and RM Williams boots.
Seems like the sanctimoniously hypocritical Greens will no longer get away with their belief in rhetorical Climate Change. Their policy free ride is over. Their lack of real action will be exposed as the shallow opportunism it has always been. Is that the sound of Greens “stuck pigs” squealing? This can only be a good thing.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/labor-mps-take-aim-at-greens-20091231-lkyu.html
GG, there is no doubt that the ‘Sell Coal to anyone’ ALP will try and spin out this stuff. I think Colleen Hartland needs to bite back with more focus on the hypocracy of the ALP’s position and I don’t think anyone is interested in whether she thinks the years is going to be a tough one, what does she expect. Having said that it show that the ALP are concerned with the growth of the inner Green vote. One thing that is lost is that all these inner seats are only ‘live’ for the Greens if the COALition preferences the Greens and come third.
This seems to be a given, but I suspect that the COALition see no real benefit in this, other than to piss off the ALP.
Zoomster, thanks for the story about the Country Alliance, its interesting that the ALP have extended the duck season, just the sort of think that the CA love. Their two candidates are real rooting shooting types, strong on conservation. Reminds me of an old Green story, the shooters party tried to do a preference swap about 15 years ago, they sent a letter outlining the similarities around the conservation issues and then stated. ‘Apart from the difference of opinion on the hunting of the ducks etc we are closer to the Greens than any other party.” Laughed like hyena’s.
oh GG, its interesting that the ALP are going early on this issue, it highlights what many are suspecting. The 2010 State Election will be two or three elections in one. Overall a strong swing to the ALP. More seats in the Lower House, etc. Then the possibility of the loss of some inner Melb seats. (Please note the use of the word ‘possible’). To the Greens, . And finally the possible swing away from the ALP in the Bush. The only trouble in the bush is that the ALP only get about 30% of the vote, so its a bit hard to see it falling much. howver in their lower house seats, Seymour for instance (strongly effected by the North South pipe) they could go.
Barking,
Yeah sure, Labor in Victoria are in so much trouble, that on current polling they’ll be returned with an increased majority. They might even win the LC as well.
The answer to Hartland and the Greenkins is what have you actually done to address CC. Posturing and name calling won’t cut it. How many opportunities will the Greens miss to actually do something on CC? I’m sure you will be hearing more of this. How many times can the Greens say we will do everything short of doing something about CC?
GG I said that “Overall a strong swing to the ALP. More seats in the Lower House, etc”
What Colleen Hartland should have said was “Peter Bachelor, with his Coal to India, and the ALP know that they have a real credibility issue on Global Warming. People know that its the Greens who are the only political party that will stand up to vested interests and start doing something on Global Warming. When the Greens win the balance of power the first thing they will do is start exposing the links between the dirty polluters and the ALP and the COALition. Its about time there waws open and transparent sponsorship disclosure. The ALP are not fooling many peolpe here, it only the Greens who are totally committed to doing things from the grass roots level, right up to the global scale on Global Warming. Its the Greens who have supported stronger targets, real action and improved feed in tariffs,` just to name a few. Voters concerned about Global Warming from both the ALP and the COAlition sides of politics will have two chances this year to send an unambiguous message to their old politicians, “Start now, join with the Greens in doing something for the future, whislt never having voted Green, this years thats about to change.”
The polls are saying as much,
Haa,
Three things the ALP have done for Global Warming,
1)Spend hundreds of millions of taxpayers money of the nonexistant Carbon capture scheme,
2)Supported digging up millions tonnes dirty COAL and exporting it to India,
3)Set targets under the ETS that are no good and given billions to their sponsors in the polluting industries.!
90
The seats covering the area within 10 km of the CBD are Williamstown, Footscray, Niddrie, Essendon, Pascoe Vale, Preston, Ivanhoe, Kew, Hawthorn, Burwood, Malvern, Caulfield, Brighton, Albert Park, Melbourne, Brunswick, Northcote, Richmond and Prahran. That is 19 seats out of 88 (21.59%) and not all of those seats contain only area within 10 km of the CBD. In fact all of the outer ring of seats contain area outside 10 km of the CBD and Niddrie and Burwood are in the majority beyond 10 km. If we say that the equivalent in enrolments of 5 seats from the group of 19 are beyond 10 km then that leaves 14 seat equivalents out of 88 (15.91%) then we have a reasonable estimate of the proportion of the electorate within 10 km of the CBD.
The Greens got 10.04% in 2006. For a majority of the Green vote (5.03%) to have come from within this area would mean they averaged over 31%% in this area. They did not break 30% overall in any seat.
Barking @98,
Classic Greens bluster. No where is there any evidence that the Greens have actually done anything. Rhetoric as a substitute for action is what the Greens are all about.
GG,
“Its about time that the ALP stopped looking for scape goats around their failures. Every time the ALP is faced with a issue, they immedieately create a “Board”, “Review” or in the case of Global Warming a new tax that won’t work but will give Billions to the Polluters. Its a sign that the ALP know they have a credibility issue on Glbal Warming that they have decided to attack the Greens. Everyone know that the Greens are the only party to have an integrated approach to Global Warming. When people say, ‘what have the Greens done?, I say, “We are out there telling the ALP that rather than spending a generations resources on new schools and other infrastructure, they could have spent a generations resources on ‘sustainable’ infrastructure. What a lost opportuntiy. I’m on the board of my grandchilds primary school. When we had a new school building approved, I suggested that as a school community we build a 9-10 star environmentally sustainable school. When the government bureaucrats turned up, they had no idea what we were talking about. Its was so absurd that when I asked them which part of the building faced North, they replied, “Oh any part you like.” They missed a fantastic opportunity to have a generation of energy saving, cheap to run, infrastructure.” This is what the ALP is doing, missing opportunities to make a difference, all talk and no joined up thinking.”
Barking,
Just a query. In Victoria, the governing bodies for State run schools are called School Councils. I have heard of Boards in the context of Private Schools. However, Private Schools are businesses that generally make their own investment decisions on facilities independant of the Government.
Perhaps you can clarify your position and the status of the School.
And yet Brumby is still the most popular Premier in Australia!
GG,
Quite right, my apologies its a government private school.
Oh and just a reminder, you started this bit of correspondance with the article from the AGE quoting Lenders and co.
Let there be no doublt here, the ALP are going to flog the COALition in next years election and I commend them for spending, federally, 43 Bill. well done, great work really well targetted and it so pissed off Howard and Costello. The point is that the ALP show in this regard and their developer sponsored building regs, is that they just don’t have a long term approach.
Apologies,
Government Primary School.
I think Baileu is onto something big….banning the bong, it could be the number one election issue this year…to ban or not to ban…the debates would draw huge crowds as people discussed the delivery methods of marijuana, whether the bong or the joint was better, or spotting hash as popular in NewZealand. Forget about the economy, jobs, education, transport, CC….this is the number one issue. This could make it 52/48 and make up the rest in the lead up to the election.
Ted I liked you personally, but please get out of politics…you so don’t belong there…you really don’t have a clue..at all, at all, at all, at all.
Have you heard of sheesha by the way? you know the legal tobaco herbal stuff smoked in a bong all the rage in nightclubs/bars now?
Front page of the AGE.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/rethink-on-outer-urban-expansion-20100104-lq5o.html
“Mr Madden’s comments are likely to anger developers and landholders, particularly to the city’s west and north, who have lobbied hard for the boundary extension.”
Now GG I could go on an anti ALP rant here, but I won’t. Lets look at the politics of this, the ALP are clearly putting this off until after the next election. They are now in agreement with you, they are likely to get the control of the upper house.
If they do get control of the upper house, it will be the start of the decline of the Vic government, but then who cares, they will have been in for 14 years, and will still likely win the 1014 election.
What? Charging developers a tax to cover the infrastructure required by new developments is ‘the start of the decline of the Vic government’?
The proposals under the Bill are: if land is rezoned for development (and rezoning is a long and intensive process) and thus improves in value, sometimes by over a hundred per cent, the government will tax the improved valuation.
In other words, the government will take a cut of the windfall gain to the developer.
This money will be used for schools, hospitals, public transport, roads, etc., which will be of benefit for everyone.
And the Greens plan to vote against the Bill.
Something against taking money from the rich to direct towards projects which are for the good of all?
Nice to see the Greens siding with the developers on this one.
The Greens are for the proposals you have listed, Zoomster. But they are against the Urban Expansion.
If the ALP decoupled these two bills, the government would get the money from developers.
Lets see how much the ALP want that money. Because it looks like it has only been proposed to make the Greens look bad, since its obvious the Greens will block the rezoning.
Ha you call these issues. people there is something bigger than all of this it is the bong, and do we ban or not? that’s what i’ll be voting on
I know that its silly season for the media and they will print anything, but if I was Balleau and some work experience media advisor came up with the idea of running a story about banning the bong, you would have to start throwing things about the room , surely what chance does he have.
I again assert that the big end of town is doing so well out of Brumby that they are suggesting to the coalition, look boys there will be directorships for everyone when you’ve finished your time of humiliation, just don’t rock the boat and don’t try and upset the apple cart.
The Coalition should be investigated for not making the slightest effort to make inroads into the governments standing.
What do these people think when they see polls heading them to oblivion, Maybe thats why they came up wiht the ban the bong, they were probably on the end of one.
Maybe it was ban the bomb and Baileau read it wrong….the whole office went D’oh!!!! It was just a typo, he was meant to go anti-nuclear….maybe not
I wonder if bong sales have skyrocketed in response/ I am still annoyed that braksy banned those cocaine kits…surely a novelty item
Dave
if the land needs to be rezoned for the surcharge to apply, then the bill only applies to land which is currently not zoned residential.
Thus there is no point decoupling the bill. There is very little land within the present urban confines which could be rezoned in this way and what there is also no lack of supporting infrastructure.
If you are not rezoning land which is presently not residential and not within the urban boundaries, there is no need for the bill fullstop.
I love the way Tim Holding works the media. They really are dumb f’s.
The State government know that when they drop the level of water restrictions before the next election there will be some backlash, (not much) in the Bush. ‘
So what does Holding do , he picks up the phone, calls the CEO of some Rural water Board and says, Hoi big ears, lower your water restirction now!. A couple of months later the pipeline issue hits the fan, someone comes out and attacks re the water being lost to water Melbournes lawns, Holding then turns around and says, ” Oh come on, its not about us and them, the people of Swan Hill are on stage one, so who can possibly argue that the Millions in Melb shouldn’t be also.”
The man is a genius, Now why doesn’t Bolt jump on this. ?
Because Bolt knows his readers, and what you have explained is a difficult concept/ scenario for his readers to follow.
Barking
given that the information water restrictions are based on is freely available to anyone who can be bothered to look, this scenario doesn’t hold water.
Water restrictions follow a set formula – there is X amount of water in Y storage/s, therefore Town B is on C restrictions.
How much water is available in the storages is well publicised (normally part of the weather news for each TV station).
So if the restrictions weren’t appropriate to the amount of water in the system, then questions would be asked (probably not by the Opposition, who aren’t the brightest sparks in the pack).
Secondly, water systems are separate. Town B can be on Stage One, quite legitimately, while Town D a few k down the road is on Stage Four, depending on where their water is sourced.
In fact, that scenario is quite common in this area. One town receives its water from the outflow of a hydro station – the hotter the weather, the more power is generated, the more water flows down the stream, so they have a very reliable water supply.
Another receives theirs from a mountain stream, with no storage at all. If the stream dries up, they’re out of water.
So two towns, less than 20 minutes apart by road, can be on totally different restrictions.
z
Mrs D was telling me that Melbourne doesn’t really need the Murray to Melb pipeline now, which was an interim measure, as you have enough reservoir water for Melb until the desal comes on line. Is that true?
No, it’s a media beat up.
According to the beat up, the pipe was only built to keep Melb in water until the desal plant came on line.
If that were true, the State would have spent a ridiculous amount of money on a short term project.
The pipeline is there as an alternative water supply. As I have explained before, the State government here realised a few years ago that having one source of water for any community, no matter how secure that water supply seemed, was a recipe for disaster.
So there’s now a deliberate policy of ensuring that as many communities as possible have more than one source of water.
Zoomster
Why don’t the vic govt build a water recylcing plant and store the water in aquifers?
Many to choose from: http://www.ourwater.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/8369/South_Western_Victoria_Water_Table_Aquifers.pdf
Storing water from surface runoff or extracting it from rivers is a poor choice.
Water recycling is (a) expensive and (b) unpopular.
Politicians might go for (b) if (a) wasn’t so, or (a) if (b) wasn’t. They’re not going to do both together.
An aquifer would still require an extensive pipeline to get it to Melbourne, which would be even more expensive and cause just as much outcry.
Recycling also involves other issues, which are rarely considered. For water to be recycled, it needs to be collected. This would require another system of pipes at a household by household level, effectively replumbing the Melbourne area. The water collected would need to be stored for treatment, involving another level of complexity.
Zoomster
water recycling is far cheaper than desal.
“An aquifer would still require an extensive pipeline to get it to Melbourne, which would be even more expensive and cause just as much outcry.”
Did you look at where the aquifers are? The infrastucture probably already exists. And pumping water form an aquifer is as cheap as pumping it from a dam.
“For water to be recycled, it needs to be collected. ”
yes, it is currently collected at sewage plants…
It is less complicated and cheaper than desal. The reason it is unpopular is simply due to ignorance.
I must say this whole paragraph sounds like you are just shooting from the hip.
“Recycling also involves other issues, which are rarely considered. For water to be recycled, it needs to be collected. This would require another system of pipes at a household by household level, effectively replumbing the Melbourne area. The water collected would need to be stored for treatment, involving another level of complexity.”
It’s all wrong. The sewerage system already exists.
Why are you pretending to know anything about this?
Here’s an interesting letter to the Vic Govt,
outlines how they could easily overcome the “rarely considered” problems of water recycling
http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/enrc/inquiries/Water/submissions/068_university_nsw.pdf
As I often say, Astro, people confuse ‘explaining’ with ‘supporting’.
I’m all for recycling.
I’m just explaining why the government won’t do it.
Would the desal plant have its own power source or would it go down in a blackout/bushfire etc? I suppose the desal could always malfunction and blow up for a while.
Diog
probably would go down. Most water systems rely on power of some kind to pump the water.
I’m not talking about a back up in case of a few days lack of water, but for a majorish event – such as we nearly experienced in 2006, when one of Melbourne’s catchments was threatened by fire.
Desal also has the advantage of not being rain reliant, which almost every other option is.
Zoomster said
“Barking
given that the information water restrictions are based on is freely available to anyone who can be bothered to look, this scenario doesn’t hold water.
Water restrictions follow a set formula – there is X amount of water in Y storage/s, therefore Town B is on C restrictions.”
My response.
NO wrong. I can absolutely assure you that the level of water restrictions are closely and flexibly manipulate for political reasons.
Re the whole recycling debate, the way around it, the only way, is to do what happens now. At the end of a town you release the waste water, run it down a short river or creek, into the next towns storage and you never tell anyone south of Abury that they are drinking, in part, recycled water,. The completely irrational attitude to recycled water is yet again a victory of belief/fear over science.
The Toowoomba referendum was a classic example. the anti-recycled water group had as their slogan, nothing about the purity of the water, but a slogan, “Stop our town being called Poohwoomba”. They won.
Barking
shattering response there. Love your use of argument, backing data and evidence.
1. Water levels in storages is freely available information.
2. Restrictions are based on storage trigger levels.
3. Where restrictions do not match storage trigger levels, this has been duly noted (lots of articles when Melb went to 3A – or whatever it was – rather than 4).
So the process is transparent, and where it has been ‘played with’ for political purposes, that information is also available.
See http://www.melbournewater.com.au/content/water_conservation/water_restrictions/storage_trigger_levels.asp
Zoomster,
Now thats the whole point, of course there are these various triggers etc, I wonder who set them? Are they followed? do we imagine for a minute that the whole thing is done within the ministers office.
My original point was that Holding was playing the Media for fools, well fair enough, but the government appoints these boards, as with many things in the great state the ALP use these boards, enquiries etc as tools for keeping criticism etc one degree removed.
In the case of Water they have actively used the ‘Oh if its all right for Swan Hill to water their lawns’ its alright for Melbourne. Thats my point. Its not really surprising that they haven’t done it in an open and transparent way, thats why its clever?
We all know about these triggers etc, totally irrelevant to the point.
Barking
Once again, assertion not evidence.
See the link above for that kind of information. The triggers are publically available, have been for yonks, so I’m sure they’ve been subject to all sorts of scrutiny. If the Minister alters them – as I admit he did with the Melbourne 3A – everyone knows about it.
It is a transparent system. Read the link.
Well it’s a very cunning plan, in that case. Most water boards, by their nature, are personned by conservative types – in some cases, even ex Liberal Ministers (Tehan was on one, as was Plowman) have been appointed. They’re not so wedded to the ALP that (a) they won’t make independent decisions and (b) they wouldn’t squeal like stuck pigs if a decision of theirs was over ruled on political grounds.
Labor people complain that when the Libs were in, these boards were stacked with Libs. Once Labor got in, the ALP was determined to show they weren’t like that, so they deliberately didn’t put ALP people on these boards (there are a few examples, but in most cases there is an argument these were made on merit). So the boards are still stacked with Lib/Nat types.
And you can’t have it both ways, Barking. If you believe in democratic decision making at the local level, you can’t then argue that letting them make decisions is deflecting blame from the government.
Are you asking for all of these decisions to be made in the Minister’s office?
You keep saying this. Please provide evidence.
If this is your point, it’s totally obscure. The double negative is confusing. Please say what you mean in a simpler way.
I think you’re saying the government is clever by being underhanded and non transparent. If so, I would like you to produce evidence of this, rather than just saying it’s so.
I’ve thought about your hinting that the ALP doesn’t use its own,. Now I wonder why, are they
1) ,”Listen, we simply don’t have enough talent” Minister in the Vic Government,.
2) ,”Its all organised, when they get bundled out all the old ALP people will be given a seat on some cushy board” Advisor to senior minister after a few too many drinks.
3) so paranoid that they think that giving all these jobs to the old conservative hacks will help deflect the medias attention. This actually works, some of these rural water boards, for example, have some of the leading lights of the conservative side of politics and they do literally phone up the conservative editors of the conservative newspapers and tell them off.
This is all conjecture and what the heck we all know that the Vatican elevation of our ex deputy Pm Peter Fisher just happened to coincide with the posting of Kim Beazley to the US jig so who cares.
We are a long way for the innitial post here but I think what this does is seriously undermine the development of talent in the ALP. It should be promoting its young union/uni/law/professionals in these positions. Just cause its a good thing to do.
Unfortunately they have fallen for the words of encouragement of the big end of town. Whilst I do not look forward to any conservative government, I do look forward to bumping into some ex ALP pollies in future years and asking them how all their fair weather conservative friends are now.
Not hinting, know from the experience of friends who were well and truly qualified.
Not sure what you mean by 2. But if you mean that the same thing will happen under the Libs – that ALP people will be given jobs – no, it doesn’t happen. Quite the reverse. Under Kennett, there was active resistance to the employment of known ALP supporters (again, personal experience. Under Kennett, got endless amounts of work in NSW, never in Vic).
Of course, it’s worse than that. Because ALP people don’t get given the experience, there’s no argument for them to be appointed after a change of govt.
So the Libs always have well placed people in strategic places, regardless of government.
3) Yes, you’re right. One of my friends, who WAS appointed (on the basis of her small business expertise, which had been recognised by even the Libs) found herself splashed across the local papers, described as a major mover and shaker in the Vic Labor party, which amused her greatly.
Fischer (Tim, BTW) may have been a figleaf for Beazley, but what of all the other appointments of senior Libs to govt postings – Costello, Downer, Hill etc? No equivalent under Howard.
Yes, it does. It’s an example of good intentions coming back to bite you. Some in the ALP are too noble for their own (and the party’s) good.
Bracks was very like that.
Don’t think it’s anything to do with the big end of town, and can’t see how you get to that conclusion (except, of course, that you don’t want to credit the ALP with ever acting on principle).
I think we have almost converged here, I sense a real frustration in your post, I share it and just wish the ALP would take no prisoners, because they started down this path its now hard for them to change. It also reinforces this absurd notion that unless you have a old school tie and daddy is a long term member of the club, you are somehow not able to sit on some board and oversee some pathetic $50 million public Authority that has a monopoly.
There is a further point here and it relates to the public service, I so wish we had the American situation, how often do we see the old bureacracies just grind down administrations, I’ll give it to Brumby etc they do much better than in the old days, but it would be so much easier if they could just clear out the top two layers. Again this brings us back to the fact that they lack talent in the ‘organisation etc”.
Mumbles frustration under breath and goes to get a strong coffee.
You have to remember the pipeline was about more than Melbourne. It also serves Ballarat and Bendigo.
As to Melbourne; I suspect that average punter would have been seriously pissed of if there had been no rain, no pipeline and Melbourne had ran out of water.
The water issue is a classic, no one will vote ALP because they think they should take care of water anyway, but there are people who will vote against them for ‘stealing’ their water.
On water, whilst eating my wheatbix this morning saw the last state government info session. Middle aged women, 97% of the earths water is in the sea, the desalination plant will bring xxx billions of litres of water to …… What the f, this political advertising is just to much.. I think the pollies don’t understand that sometimes it probably better just to shut up rather than listening to the advertising gurus who unsurprisingly tell you that this add is a cracker.
Just before this thread disappears, just want to go on the record with a prediction, .The next edition of this poll will show a “narrowing”. Not much, 1% is my guess, maybe 2 max. Bails up 2-4 Brumby about the same, Greens 14-15%.