tip off

Seat of the week: Makin

Labor enjoyed blowout majorities in traditionally marginal Adelaide seats at the 2010 election, but the Liberals are expressing optimism that what went up might be about to come down.

The north-eastern Adelaide seat of Makin extends from Pooraka near the city to Tea Tree Gully and Greenwith at the limits of the metropolitan area. Labor is especially strong in the areas nearer the city, from Walkley Heights north to Salibsury East, beyond which are generally newer suburbs with more mortgage payers and families, who have helped keep the Liberals competitive or better for most of the seat’s history. The redistribution has added around 6000 voters from Port Adelaide in the west, including a newly developed Liberal-leaning area around the University of South Australia campus at Mawson Lakes along with strongly Labor Salisbury further north. The combined effect has been to shave the Labor margin from 12.2% to 11.8%.

Makin is one of three seats which went from being Liberal seats in the final term of the Howard government to Labor seats with double-digit margins after the 2010 election, together with Kingston in the south of the city and Wakefield in its outer north. It was created with the expansion of parliament in 1984 from an area that had mostly formed the southern end of safe Labor Bonython, the majority of which was in turn absorbed by Wakefield when it was abolished in 2004. Makin was held for Labor by uncomfortable margins from 1984 to 1996 by Peter Duncan, a former Attorney-General in Don Dunstan’s state government. A 4.8% swing put Duncan on the Keating government casualty list in 1996, and he returned to the headlines in 2007 after being charged with fraudulently obtaining government grants for his plastics recycling company.

Duncan’s Liberal successor was former nurse Trish Draper, who emerged as a prime ministerial favourite after strong performances at the next two elections. The swing against Draper at the 1998 election was just 0.2% compared with a statewide swing to Labor of 4.2%, and in 2001 she bettered her 1996 margin after picking up a swing of 3.0%. Draper went on to hit serious trouble in the lead-up to the 2004 election when it emerged she had taken a boyfriend on a study trip to Europe at taxpayers’ expense, in breach of rules limiting the benefit to spouses. She nonetheless survived by 0.9% at the 2004 election, despite suffering a swing which was not reflected in neighbouring seats. Draper retired at the 2007 election citing an illness in the family, before unsuccessfully attempting a comeback in the state seat of Newland at the March 2010 election.

Tony Zappia won Makin for Labor on his second attempt in 2007, and handsomely increased his margin to 12.2% in 2010. He had been the mayor of Salisbury since 1997, a councillor for many years beforehand, and at one time a weightlifting champion. Zappia was widely reckoned to have been victim of his own factional non-alignment when the Right’s Julie Woodman defeated him for preselection in 2001, and a repeat performance appeared on the cards when a factional deal ahead of the 2004 election reserved the seat for Dana Wortley of the “hard Left”. The arrangement displeased local branches as well as party hard-heads concerned that a crucial marginal seat should be contested by the most appealing candidate, and Premier Mike Rann prevailed upon Wortley’s backers to throw their weight behind Zappia.

The move appeared a dead end for Zappia in the short term, as he was unable to win the seat in 2004 whereas Wortley was elected from the Senate position she was offered as consolation. However, he performed considerably better with the electoral breeze at his back in 2007, demolishing the 0.9% Liberal margin with a swing of 8.6%. This was achieved in the face of a high-impact publicity campaign by Liberal candidate Bob Day, housing tycoon and national president of the Housing Industry Association who has since run for election with Family First.

The once non-aligned Zappia is now a member of the Left, and is believed to have backed Kevin Rudd during his February 2012 leadership challenge. His Liberal opponent is Sue Lawrie, who has variously run flower sales businesses and worked on the staff of various Liberal MPs. Lawrie has run several times at state level, most recently as an independent Liberal at the Port Adelaide by-election of February 2012.

1401
  • 451
    DisplayName
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

    Not being a Liberal supporter doesn’t automatically make one a Labor supporter. In any case, why should we frame everything in terms of what political party they support?

    I suppose that’s a silly question on a political blog when talking about a show called ‘insiders’, hosted by a network that subscribes to a false construction of the idea ‘balance’ :P .

  • 452
    Diogenes
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 3:23 pm | Permalink

    Kevin

    At state level I think the survival rate for governments that scrape home at the election after is poor.

    Very true. Clearly NSW and Qld won one election too many.

  • 453
    lizzie
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

    Matty

    I agree with Diogenes at 446.

  • 454
    bemused
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 3:28 pm | Permalink

    Player One@435


    The reason bemused gets such stick on this blog is not because he supports Rudd, it’s because he CLAIMS to support Gillard, but patently does not. For example (posted earlier today):


    I will work for and vote for the Gillard Govt.

    I just wish she would stop undermining my efforts and the efforts of many others.


    Normally, a “concern” troll on a site like this would be an LNP or Green supporter who pretends to support Labor, but says they have deep “concerns” about them – or vice versa. Easy to spot. Easy to refute, and they tend not to stay around long once unmasked.

    But Bemused blindsides many here because he really IS a Labor supporter, not an LNP or Green supporter. But like a concern troll, while he CLAIMS to support Gillard, he spends his entire time here pointing out her deficiencies – many of which exist only in his own fevered imaginings, or which are taken straight from the various LNP talking points. He now seems to be tending towards the latter since he’s apparently found that these get him better responses here on PB.

    His ambition is to see Gillard rolled by Rudd. Fine by me – I just wish he would go take that up on a site that was more interested in the internal ructions of the party. He actually has little to contribute to most LNP vs Labor vs Green debates, since he is so blinded by his Gillard vs Rudd monomania.

    Like many here, I wish he were not so prominent on this blog. But monomaniacs tend not to be able see their own obsessions, so I guess we are stuck with him. For those of us who have been around PB for a while, the person bemused most reminds me of lately is Frank Calabrese. Frank also could never seem to get over his own issues, and (like bemused) insisted on always having the last word – even when it cost him dearly. After interminable bans and lots of angst, Frank ended up leaving for redder pastures. We can hope that eventually bemused will do the same … but I am not going to hold my breath!

    I really don’t see why it takes you so many words to explain your inability to understand a very simple proposition. Maybe if I put it in point form you will understand at last.

    1. I will always work for the election/re-election of a Labor Government no matter who the leader is.

    2. I think Julia Gillard is a disastrous leader who makes repeated unforced errors and scores own goals.

    3. I would prefer someone else was leader and Kevin Rudd is the standout. There are others who are not yet ready and I would hate for any of them to be destroyed by taking the leadership before being ready.

    4. I think Wayne Swan is an excellent Treasurer but lacking in the ability to sell the great success of Labor in managing the economy. Either he needs to step aside or there needs to be some other way of managing this problem worked out.

    I am really tired of this issue, but others keep raising it in one way or another.

    I do plenty of arguing with Torys when the opportunity arises, but there aren’t too many around these days. I have also argued against Greens.

    I hope this assists you.

    BTW, I have little in common with Frank and was frequently on the receiving end of his vitriolic attacks. :D

  • 455
    Jackol
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 3:29 pm | Permalink

    but others keep raising it in one way or another

    …and you have no self control to prevent yourself from responding every single time.

  • 456
    Bugler
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

    Bemused,

    Forgive me, I assumed that this:

    So can I take your other assertions as being just as accurate?

    refered to something I actually wrote.

    Diogenes,

    The nurses with higher qualifications will do some of the jobs doctors do so they will be very valuable and won’t be made redundant.

    It’s all about the best use of resources. Why employ highly qualified and experienced people on $60K to feed and wash patients when other people on $30K can do the same thing?

    I guess you’re right. I just get a bit edgy when these things are proposed, as they have been tried before, and are usually a failure. They’re not so much aimed at efficiency as reducing costs more generally, at the expense of better services.

  • 457
    poroti
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

    Scringler

    Simla is nice. Don’t forget the green tea!

    :lol: The last time we cooked the Eastern states suffered quite dreadfully a few days later.So prepare well.

  • 458
    bemused
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

    confessions@442


    Player One:

    When the polls improved for the govt bemused turned up saying he was wrong, we were right etc, and that the govt really was in with a chance.

    The polls are now poor for the govt, so bemused turns up pronouncing doom and gloom and baying for Ruddstoration.

    When the polls improve for the govt, bemused will turn up saying he was wrong, we were right etc etc and round and round it goes.

    Mumble had a column recently about people like bemused who frame their arguments around whatever the polls are doing, and wind up looking ridiculous because of it.

    Meanwhile those of us who think it’s too soon to start worrying about polls just look on with amused interest.

    Thank you confessions for accepting that “when the facts change I change my mind.” Now, the other pat of that famous quotation from Keynes was “what do you do sir?” and of course we know the answer in your case, cling to unreality.

    Yes, I did get hopeful for a while, but things have again gone sour due to a combination of unfortunate events (ICAC/Obeid, Thomson) and further poor judgement by the PM.

    Polls simply track public sentiment driven by public perceptions of what is happening.

    Something has to happen. Business as usual is not an option.

  • 459
    Kevin Bonham
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

    Diogenes@452


    Kevin


    At state level I think the survival rate for governments that scrape home at the election after is poor.


    Very true. Clearly NSW and Qld won one election too many.

    Those one-too-many elections were not even all that close – governments that were clearly on the skids retained office fairly comfortably in the end.

    Labor in Tas has also won at least one too many.

  • 460
    CTar1
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 3:44 pm | Permalink

    Jackol – It is compulsive as far as I can work out.

    It’s a shame as a single well measured reply in the first instance would be a more effective response.

  • 461
    Boerwar
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

    scringler

    good post.

    Abbott, the toughest, meanest, bravest politician of our age and they have to hide him and his policies, whatever they are, from the OM meanies…

  • 462
    zoomster
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

    fran

    (this is purely a philosophical question, so don’t go linking me with Eddie Obeid or Attila the Hun or whatever for posing it….)

    If you as an individual believed absolutely and genuinely that a certain issue (for the purposes of argument, say action on climate change) was essential to tackle, and you absolutely and genuinely believed that only your party could tackle it, wouldn’t all other moral considerations go out the board?

    If it was a choice between your compromising your personal values or the greater good of humanity, wouldn’t sticking to your personal values regardless simply be selfishness?

    I realise that’s an extreme – we are rarely placed in a position where a moral compromise on our part will have a direct result – but surely, if one was, then putting the good of humanity over one’s personal ethical viewpoint would not only be justified, but the only moral decision?

    It seems to me that putting one’s own morality above the greater good is simply a form of selfishness – you feel good about yourself, but the world is destroyed.

  • 463
    MsLaurie
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

    Someone earlier mentioned Eden-Monaro as a likely fall in NSW.

    I doubt that will be the case, but of course time will tell. (I’m an ex-Queanbeyan resident, but its been a few years, so maybe I’m out of touch…)

    The biggest population centre in E-M is Queanbeyan, where the majority of the population either works in Canberra, or has their employment linked with the finances of Canberrans. With the level of federal public service cuts being proposed by Abbott, its difficult to imagine many Queanbeyen residents being keen on the living with the fallout.

    Also, Mike Kelly is (or at least appears to be) a fairly popular local member. He’s actually from the area and (was? is?) quite well regarded.

  • 464
    The Unusual Moustache
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

    EXPEL KEVIN RUDD FROM THE LABOR PARTY!!!!

  • 465
    Boerwar
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

    bemused has been the most persistent Liberal/Greens troll (same same) in the history of Bludger.

    His measure of success is triggering someone, anyone, to post something, anything, about a certain person.

    bemused

    I tips me lid. You have ‘won’ day after day after day after day. Your creel is choc-a-bloc full of fools who have tried to reason with you. Your point is, of course, not the reasoning. It is to get that strike, the hook up, the reeling in of the credulous.

    Well done.

  • 466
    daretotread
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

    Bushfire

    I assume you did not in fact read what I wrote because if you did you clearly did not understand it.

    I will put is a bit more simply

    2009 every one loved the ETS
    2010 Only the greenies loved the ETS and the rest were scared

    2010 Gillard and Swan (QUITE REASONABLY given the political climate) argued that it should be dumped

    Kevin Rudd as PM had to make a judgement call:
    1. Either Go for a DD when half or MORE of his cabinet hated the scheme. Running a DD campaign on a particular issue without most of your team behind you is bloody hard
    Or

    2. Delay the scheme and take the public flack.

    Kevin Rudd chose no 2 and copped a popularity thumping firstly from the greenies and secondly from those who even though they did no LONGER like the scheme still thought he had broken his word.

    Now once the election campaign started Gillard announced the bloody silly Citizens Assembly, clearly a Yes Minister fob off of the issue. It also became public knowledge that she and Swan had opposed the ETS. At THAT point the public got over their Rudd broke his promise anger and transferred the blame to Gillard.

    BB in politics you can and do very often have it both ways. Public mood is volatile and something they love today they may hate tomorrow. Think popularity of Abba or just about any women’s fashion, or even wall coverings (orange swirl wall paper anyone??)

  • 467
    zoomster
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

    daretotread

    1. Large sections of his cabinet (possibly even a majority) had switched and were now opposed to the ETS. Many of those who opposed did so for perfectly respectable reasons but they were still opposed. Those we know were opposed included Ferguson, Crean ie the Victorian manufacturing sector.

    Sorry, what? One link to information about any of this.

    No, large sections (and certainly not a majority) of caucus were not against an ETS, otherwise they wouldn’t (a) have tried so hard to get one up, burning political capital in the process; (b) gone into an election promising action in this area and (c) stuck to delivering action in this area when it was clearly unpopular in the polls.

    Labor had tried to get the legislation through twice. Each time it was rejected in the Senate. Thus it was pointless trying again until the Senate changed.

    This was the advice given to Rudd. He had a choice – DD or wait until the Senate changed.

    The Liberals were hanging out for a DD on climate change. One assumes that they had good reasons for doing so.

    Now in taking this decision Rudd took a huge PERSONAL hit, reflected in the polls. He took this hit because HE had said it was the greatest moral challenge. The public no longer thought of him as superman and his stakes fell.

    Right. So Rudd made a decision. He took a hit because of it because he had set himself up as something he wasn’t. If he had been more moderate in his language beforehand, or more determined to stick to his commitments afterward, then he wouldn’t have suffered this damage.

    People keep sniping about the surplus promise as a sign of bad judgement. If so, they have to also accept that Rudd also suffered as a result of poor judgement.

    The ‘perfect storm’ was one Rudd created for himself.

  • 468
    Puff, the Magic Dragon.
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

    I am not putting up with days upon days of the rudd merry-go-round. I check in and if the wooden horses are still circling, I bugger off to Twitter or somewhere.

  • 469
    Puff, the Magic Dragon.
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

    That apalling weeks-long saga on here just before Xmas did me in.

  • 470
    poroti
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

    Puff, the Magic Dragon.

    days upon days of the rudd merry-go-round

    They make even the Assange-a-round seem scintillating :(

  • 471
    AJ Canberra
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

    MsLaurie, while I think Kelly is a popular local member, a major swing against Labor may be too much for him to survive. This would be a pity.
    One thing I recall from last year’s failed challenge: of those who declared their support for Rudd, most were safe seat holders or Senators. Most of the marginal seat holders who declared support were backing Gillard. Surely, if marginal seat holders were worried they would have been backing Rudd unless they thought it’s a lost cause regardless, they didn’t think Rudd is the saviour many of his supporters do, or they genuinely cannot bear the idea of Rudd leading again.

  • 472
    Fran Barlow
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

    Here’s a partial transcript of Friday’s journo’s forum on “Breakfast”, with Malcolm Farr, Paul Bongiorno and Katherine Murphy.

    {Fran Kelly: Framing “main talking points” 100% coalition

    Farr: QT — Libs not positive — personality politics

    Katherine Murphy: We can’t avoid personality — a segue — Abbott quiet; Election season etc …

    PB: credibility not economics — Govt gets to challenge opposition about their policies — “when are you getting to surplus and how?
    Kelly: The opposition thinks they can ‘fob off’ hard policy questions until much closer to the election
    Farr: Opposition ambushed by super discussion, they looked a bit uncomfortable:

    Kelly (breaking in) That’s right (embarrassed and impatient half giggle) there’s been some fancy footwork on superannuation this week …Look to the frustration of many Labor MPs and I must say many of our listeners too the leadership issue has emerged already again this week, week 1 of the parliament, can you believe it, so much so that the PM herself felt it necessary to reprimand MPs in caucus for whiteanting the government to the media. What does that tell us about the pressure Julia Gillard is feeling from inside her party room and was that ill-advised to do that or not? Did it have to be done?

    Farr blames Julia Gillard for the fanciful suggestion that in some way MPs were responsible for the “messy start to the year, the Nova Peris matter etc.

    Kelly: Yes, but is it fair enough that, well … umm … as I say a lot of people think we’re inventing this. Certainly that’s not true … Labor MPs saying it to the point where another of their colleagues, Senator Chris Evans, is on his way out — he’s a cabinet minister, he’s now … let me let me read you his quote “Shut up! just shut up no party can succeed if it’s got people talking to people like you offering negative views”.

    PB: Speaks about a “rump” for whom nothing Gillard does is any good.

    Katherine Murphy: Speaks of a chaos narrative …

    Kelly: She’s given them (“the rump”) some ammunition.

    Katherine Murphy: The Rudd matter is a “real” thing … everytime a chaos narrative appears so does the cherubic Mr Rudd … that’s why readers get the poop.

    Kelly: I’m glad you brought us to the … what was the word — the cherubic Mr Rudd. Because This week on Brekky we kicked off with an interview with had Simon Crean on the program and he seemed very clear that Labor had to harness the powers and the popularity of the cherubic Mr Rudd.

    Crean grab: Rudd as a “disciplined asset”

    Kelly: Well Kevin Rudd has certainly been busy this week on social media he’s putting out videos right left and centre and tweeting right left and centre {…} how does the Labor Party, the Government harness Kevin Rudd in a controlled … in a disciplined way in a campaign led by Julia Gillard? Is that possible?

    Farr: Crean saying Kevin “you’re not fooling anybody

    Kelly: How do they do it?

    PB: With great difficulty — alomost … well it’s impossible really {General laughing} when the government’s fortunes go down … Comparison with Howard and rose coloured view of past {golden peaks rather than dark troughs}.

    Kelly: Kevin Rudd is going to be on Sunrise … every week … you could ask why. I’ve heard a rumour that Gillard didn’t even know …

    {…}]

    You can see from the above that Kelly plays an active role in steering discussion away from matters of substance — policy questions — such as superannuation, and onto the soap opera.

    Even at the end, the “northern Australia discussion paper” Kelly said “there’s a lot to talk about and there will be plenty of time to talk about it (not on her show though! FB) but …

    Here she wants to talk about “messaging”, “narrowcasting” “was this policy for QLD?”.

    The entire segment basically was one giant exercise in poring over talking points to see how much they hurt the government — and this was really the result of Kelly’s active direction at a couple of points.

  • 473
    Boerwar
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 4:15 pm | Permalink

    Mike Kelly is a very well known and respected local member.

    I see no reason why he will not retain his seat with an increased majority and I anticipate that he will be promoted to the Cabinet in the next Gillard Government.

  • 474
    confessions
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 4:15 pm | Permalink

    Thank you confessions for accepting that “when the facts change I change my mind.”

    Rather than Keynes, all your flipping and flopping according to what the polls are doing just makes you look like Graham Richardson. And completely ridiculous into the bargain.

  • 475
    Bugler
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 4:16 pm | Permalink

    Davidwh,

    Just on Griffith there was a re-distribution 7/8 years ago which made the seat safer for Labor so while it did go to the Libs in 1996 it would be tougher today.

    Thanks Davidwh, noted.

    (I do note that for all the talk about Kevin’s impact in Griffith, which I don’t argue isn’t significant or even substantialy larger than that of a regular member, he did suffer a swing against him in 2010 anyway.

    Local member impact is always a bit tricky, Cheeseman managed to hold Corangamite despite apparently being almost non-existant, and Fran Bailey almost lost McEwen in 2007, despite being personally highly approved. People like to accuse Gibbons of being a complete twat and yet he’s held one of the most famous “marginal” seats for well over a decade and made it more or less safe for him and the ALP.

    Sorry for the Victoria-centric references, if that bothers anyone.)

  • 476
    gloryconsequence
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

    Why are people here so angry at the media for bringing up Rudd on a daily basis when we, the people on a Labor-dominant blog, do the same?

  • 477
    confessions
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

    Malcolm Farnsworth ‏@mfarnsworth
    Video: A standout moment in Question Time 1992 - Michael Duffy demolishes a young first-termer called Costello: http://auspol.info/VMvHhb

    A true spanking for Costello! :lol:

  • 478
    Boerwar
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

    Newman denies that they were wearing white shoes and carrying brown paper bags:

    http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/newman-urged-to-sack-bates-over-lobbyists/story-e6frfku9-1226574765207

  • 479
    cud chewer
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

    I don’t think bemused has ever seriously considered that if Rudd were brought back as leader he’d rediscover just what a bunch of assholes the media are.

    Its always Julia’s fault when she “stumbles” in the face of a partisan media. But if Rudd were back and the same media using the same tactics repeatedly beat up the same predictable lines “so what was wrong with your last leader”, would bemused suddenly realise its not just about the leader, but its really about media?

  • 480
    deblonay
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

    Bemused re Confessions 258
    _____________________
    “just look on with amused interest”
    ______
    Confessions odd comment that it’s to early to worry about polls…and he./she and others look on your concerns with”amused interest”…seems to me to be complacent to a great degree…

    When is it time to start to worry ?…in the last months or weeks of the campaign too late then !
    I agree that the recent weeks have been very bad for the Govt and I expect the next round of polls to be very bad too…
    ….how far down to they have to go to arouse the concern of Confession s and some others who watch the ship sinking with “amused interest “?

  • 481
    confessions
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 4:22 pm | Permalink

    Mumble on those who flip and flop according to the polls:

    There was a time, not too long ago, when pumped-up Coalition supporters confidently predicted a Labor wipe-out at the next federal election.

    “It’ll be like Queensland!”, they chortled. “It’ll be like NSW!”, they thundered.

    What happened to those people?

    Less than a year ago, an apocryphal commentator—let’s call him “Graham”, or perhaps “Richo"—bewailed the 2013 federal election result which would see Labor would suffer “the worst defeat in its history”.

    Why would someone write this? The Newspoll a few days earlier had been particularly bad for the ALP, 41 per cent after preferences to the Coalition’s 59. That might have had something to do with that.

    But last week our hypothetical pundit declared the government has “a real shot of winning”. “ Because of the most recent Newspoll, 51 to 49 in the Coalition’s favour.

    Anticipating the next election based on the latest opinion poll. Surely there’s a better way.

    http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/mumble/index.php/theaustralian/comments/class_of_31/

  • 482
    Fran Barlow
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

    Zoomster:

    It seems to me that putting one’s own morality above the greater good is simply a form of selfishness – you feel good about yourself, but the world is destroyed.

    It’s unclear how a person whose “personal morality” starts from their perception of “the greater good” could have this conflict.

    It’s also unclear what role you see in achieving and sustaining “the greater good” for “good process”.

    For me, “the greater good” is a starting point for evaluating policy. I cannot imagine how, for me, there could be a conflict between the two.

  • 483
    daretotread
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 4:24 pm | Permalink

    Zoomster

    I said CABINET not Caucus. I think going to a DD of any issue is next to impossible if you do not have at least 3/4 of your team enthusiastically behind it

    There were 20 members of cabinet

    Known strongly pro ETS
    Rudd, Wong, Tanner, Albo, Faulkner, Garrett,

    Known strongly against
    Ferguson, Crean

    Switched to the anti side
    Gillard, Swan

    Possibly indifferent but not strongly supportive
    Conroy, Burke, Shorten, McClelland, Smith, Ludwig, Bowen

    I really have no idea
    Roxon, Carr, Evans, Macklin

    There were four strong people in the tream: rudd tanner, Swan Gillard. They were split on the issue.
    Only a bloody fool would have risked a DD

  • 484
    daretotread
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

    Zoomster

    I said CABINET not Caucus. I think going to a DD of any issue is next to impossible if you do not have at least 3/4 of your team enthusiastically behind it

    There were 20 members of cabinet

    Known strongly pro ETS
    Rudd, Wong, Tanner, Albo, Faulkner, Garrett,

    Known strongly against
    Ferguson, Crean

    Switched to the anti side
    Gillard, Swan

    Possibly indifferent but not strongly supportive
    Conroy, Burke, Shorten, McClelland, Smith, Ludwig, Bowen

    I really have no idea
    Roxon, Carr, Evans, Macklin

    There were four strong people in the team: rudd tanner, Swan Gillard. They were split on the issue.
    Only a bloody fool would have risked a DD

  • 485
    Acerbic Conehead
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

    In ancient folklore, “Will” with his “wisp” (torch) used to lead the unwary traveller off the safe track, to certain death, into the treacherous bog.

    Kevin Rudd has become the will-o’-the-wisp of Australian politics.

    Kev-o’-the-kero.

  • 486
    poroti
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

    confessions

    For your delectation….yet again :) PJK skewers the “Hammock Dweller”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rnwn4q_ZE9c

    Bonus PJK vs Lord Downer of Baghdad :) Goodness young Harry J looks young.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7B4LMSFAew

  • 487
    davidwh
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

    CTar spelling isn’t my strong suit. I actually lived in the Griffith electorate for 20 years until we got re-distributed into Bonner.

  • 488
    cud chewer
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

    At school I got to witness firsthand just how quickly people descend into “blame the victim” mentality, when I was bullied and of course it was my fault.

    I see the same in the media’s treatment of Julia. She may not always be well advised, nor is the organization itself doing a good job to deal with the Liberal’s lies, but there’s an awful lot of the media twisting the narrative so that everything she does is wrong, and then to add insult to injury blaming her. Conversely the media prop up every thing Abbott does. Even when he’s running away from scrutiny the media say “well thats a good strategy”, or if he’s destroying the integrity of the Parliament, they say “he’s an effective opposition leader”.

    Being tossed into the deepest pit of Hell is too good for some of them.

  • 489
    bemused
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

    confessions@474



    Thank you confessions for accepting that “when the facts change I change my mind.”


    Rather than Keynes, all your flipping and flopping according to what the polls are doing just makes you look like Graham Richardson. And completely ridiculous into the bargain.

    Well I couldn’t possibly match you for ridiculousness.

    I imagine you stick rigidly to your view that it is cold when the thermometer goes up and measures 40deg.

    The polls are my ‘thermometer’ of electoral sentiment.

  • 490
    poroti
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

    AC

    Kevin Rudd has become the will-o’-the-wisp of Australian politics.

    The Ethyl Mercaptan of the Labor party it would seem.

  • 491
    WeWantPaul
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

    The Liberals were hanging out for a DD on climate change. One assumes that they had good reasons for doing so.

    Only a bloody fool would have risked a DD

    I think I agree with much of what has been said above, but it is important to remember that a DD election would have had any labor ETS in the line of fire from both the Libs and the Greens. One side saying you don’t need it and the other saying you might as well not have one if you are going to have this lame Labor one.

  • 492
    Boerwar
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

    So, when Gillard forms her new Government after the election, which ministers should be demoted and who promoted?

  • 493
    bemused
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

    Bugler@475


    Davidwh,


    Just on Griffith there was a re-distribution 7/8 years ago which made the seat safer for Labor so while it did go to the Libs in 1996 it would be tougher today.


    Thanks Davidwh, noted.

    (I do note that for all the talk about Kevin’s impact in Griffith, which I don’t argue isn’t significant or even substantialy larger than that of a regular member, he did suffer a swing against him in 2010 anyway.

    Local member impact is always a bit tricky, Cheeseman managed to hold Corangamite despite apparently being almost non-existant, and Fran Bailey almost lost McEwen in 2007, despite being personally highly approved. People like to accuse Gibbons of being a complete twat and yet he’s held one of the most famous “marginal” seats for well over a decade and made it more or less safe for him and the ALP.

    Sorry for the Victoria-centric references, if that bothers anyone.)

    I am happy with your Victoria-centric references. :D

    In addition to seats being altered by boundary changes, there is a surprisingly high turnover of voters in many electorates. This can significantly alter electorates in either direction.

  • 494
    poroti
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

    confessions

    Back then I took 3/4 of feck all attention to politics. I recognised the name Michael Duffy but was unaware of how he filleted the Hammock Dweller so comprehensively .Excellent viewing.

  • 495
    daretotread
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 4:40 pm | Permalink

    BW

    When a swing is on it is on and the best members in the world lose their spots

    In 2010 regional NSW stayed with Labor. No idea what will happen in 2013.

    I do agree that the dominance of Queanbeyan in E-M will help Kelly

  • 496
    hairy nose
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

    Puff, the Magic Dragon.

    I am not putting up with days upon days of the rudd merry-go-round. I check in and if the wooden horses are still circling, I bugger off to Twitter or somewhere

    I’m with Puff (and earlier Mari) Both sides in these “history wars” are ruining this blog

  • 497
    Boerwar
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

    Combet will go down in Australian history as the first minister to do something serious about AGW.

    Conroy will be famous for getting the NBN right.

    Swan will be known for getting us through the GFC.

    Shorten did some great ground work on the NDIS.

    Ludwig will be well-remembered for getting the live meat trade wRONg. He should go.

    Smith will be remembered as by far and away the best Defence Minister for decades.

    Any other standouts, one way or another?

  • 498
    zoomster
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

    Bugler

    yes – it’s far too common here for people to take a state swing and then apply it as if it’s uniform.

    There are always factors – the local member, the weight of local demographics – which mean that seats swing differently, even if they are similar in make up.

    You can’t go “ARggh!! 5% swing against Labor in NSW! That means X is gone!” without other evidence to back that prediction.

    The indicators are that Mike Kelly, for example, is safe. Public servants make up a large part of his constituency, and they are being constantly spooked by various wild schemes the Coalition puts up, whether that be wholesale sackings or transferring departments to Siberia.

    All reports are that he’s a popular and focussed local member and (basically) all round nice guy.

    I’ve got MP friends in Victoria, who on all the indicators should never have won their seats in 1999 and should have lost them every election since, but are still firmly in place – because they’re good local members who work hard for their communities.

    I will also caution people here about using past trends to predict future events. History is a useful guide, and as a trained historian I respect that – but it isn’t a definitive one.

    2007 was filled with prognostations along the lines of “Ooohh, I know Labor’s going well in the polls, but it’s impossible for them to win, because we’ve never had an election where 16 seats changed hands, therefore we never will.”

    In the event, Labor won by a far bigger margin than that.

  • 499
    poroti
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 4:45 pm | Permalink

    FAAAAAARK ME . Pardon my French but there are limits.

    Labor MP Kevin Rudd has talents and experience that could land him a diplomatic appointment under a coalition government, deputy opposition leader Julie Bishop says.

    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/bishop-open-to-rudd-appointment-20130210-2e696.html#ixzz2KTL7Z37w

  • 500
    Boerwar
    Posted Sunday, February 10, 2013 at 4:45 pm | Permalink

    d

    Yeah. They got rid of Whan and he was top shelf stuff.

    Kelly is an excellent local member who knows his electorate extremely well. Mike is reasonably conservative which fits a lot of the electorate as well. He is well-known and well-respected amongst the defence community.

    The big difference this election is that the Libs have selected a better quality candidate who is well-heeled and is hitting his straps early.

    Needless to say we will be doing HTVCs this election again.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...