A recent flurry of opinion polling today reaches a climax with results from ACNielsen and, unexpectedly, Newspoll, which normally reports on Tuesday. The former rains on the recent Coalition polling parade somewhat with a survey of 1403 voters showing no change in the primary vote situation from last month: Labor on 48 per cent, Coalition on 39 per cent. Nonetheless, the two-party result has narrowed just slightly, from 58-42 to 57-43, while Kevin Rudd’s preferred prime minister lead is down from 51-43 to 48-42. Bryan Palmer’s newly updated graphs can be viewed here.
Newspoll offers a similar result, with Labor leading 56-44 on two-party preferred. However, it’s better news for the Coalition in relative terms – the previous Newspoll three weeks ago had Labor with a quirky-looking lead of 60-40. The Coalition primary vote is up from 35 per cent to 39 per cent; Labor’s is down from 52 per cent to 46 per cent; Kevin Rudd’s preferred prime minister lead is down from 47-38 to 46-40.
Noisy Jasmine & Dembo
Thanks for the response but nothing either new, nor surprising here.
1. Both of you, I trust that you, of course have first hand experience with the plight of the indigenous. It is a criticism I find the Left struggling to answer, that often their philosophies and political dogma, indeed even the substitution of “placard activism” for something that actually helps lives, is something that many Australians seem to have grown weary of.
I work and socialise with people that work with Indigenous people, urban and remote, on a weekly basis. Removing Petrol, Alcohol and Porn works, ask Noel Pearson, who knows better than you. Sorry for being so blunt here.
2. Dembo, your hollow argument about pornography runs thus:
a) A healthy and active sex life is a healthy thing
b) Your belief is that pornography may contribute a role in this health
c) Presumably this “right” is a freedom and worth protecting
Ok well, here’s a similar set:
a) A healthy social life involves community involvement, sport and healthy competition
b) Healthy competition and sporting activity can improve confidence and self esteem
c) This right is a freedom worth protecting
….Oh, except that this is a set of arguments for a Sporting Shooter defending the rights to high-powered automatic weapons in 1996.
How keen are you on gun control?
My point is simply that both sides of politics hold values grounded in logic they don’t afford to others. Well might you argue that porn and alcohol don’t primarily cause child abuse (neither do guns make human beings violent) but in both cases, their presence in the lives of people with problems contribute to greater damage.
I don’t like guns, I don’t like porn and I drink alcohol regularly but don’t like the way that governments profit from its distribution (it makes them slower to reduce its availability). Indigenous communities in crisis need none of it. They do need people who can turn their placards back into mops and help out.
3. There is no point disputing the causative influence of alcohol and porn in lowering resistance to predatory behaviour. It is well established and, in my roles in the past with trying to rehabilitate paedophiles and counsel their victims, alcohol and porn were two factors that increased the likelihood and severity of attacks and contributed to maintaining the cycle of abuse.
One thing that has always made me both sad and angry is the stridence and ignorance of those with a political barrow to push with no runs on the board with helping victims. Please tell me differently with the two of you. It would certainly be a refreshing change.
I am certainly not meaning to offend both of you, nor to denigrate the Left. Some of my most important values would be considered Left. This is not a partisan debate, this is a debate about Australian Political Dogma.
All party politics has dismally failed the Indigenous of this country. It’s time we did something to change this.
STROP says
Are you saying none in 2007 Bill, nationwide ? Most ‘experts’ I read say the remainng Democrat Senators are doomed, for one reason or another, and their seats will go to the ALP (VIC/SA/WA/QLD) or the Greens. Do you have the time to expand on this prognosis ?
Negatives
1. It will be very hard for us to win extra Senate seats due to the possible alliance between the ALP and FF in every state except NSW. A very disappointing but expected shift to the religious right by the ALP.
2. As many on here have explained the poor Dem vote will work against us as we do not get many prefs from other parties.
3. The usual media ‘ Ban ‘ and promotion of negative views of the Greens.
Positives
1.On the plus side the slow creeping up of Howard in the polls has increased our percentage so it could just as easily turn around
2. Both the left wing unions and YR@W are promoting vote 1 Green in the senate.
3. The move to the ? center right by the ALP has alienated the left and may bring our vote up.
Hi Generic Oracle,
1. I worked for two years with a native title rep body, with indigenous people, in an office and on country. Of course, I can’t presume to speak for any Aboriginal person or group, or even a NTRB, all I can do is offer my own opinion, and it is that Howard has always wanted to convert native title held land to private leases, and lo-and-behold, one of his ways to stop the pedophiles is to … convert native title held land to private leases. You mention causation, but I feel fairly confident in saying that pedophilia and having native title land are not related to each other. So I question this aspect of the government’s proposed policies.
2. I was not supporting the “right” to view porn. I initially questioned the link between viewing pornography and being turned into a pedophile (or any kind of sexual deviant), which is an implicit assumption in Howard’s proposal. I think it is a wrong assumption. Millions of Australians look at porn and do not become kiddie fiddlers.
But even though I wasn’t supporting the “right to view porn”. I would anyway support an adult’s right to view almost any material they want (obviously there are consent issues that mean some material must be banned, etc), including most forms of pornography, books about terrorism, books on religion and any political material.
And also comparing banning consentually made, non-violent porn (which is what Howard wants to do for Aboriginal people only) to banning weapons which kill people, that’s setting up a straw man argument I never made. But even in that case, I have never been for banning guns. In fact, I am in favour of adults owning many types of guns. I call it “letting people do whatever the hell they want as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else” – crazy concept I know, but it’s just how I feel.
By the way, people are so quick to say this policy or that policy has failed Aboriginal people … my own opinion is that 150 years of oppression will take several generations to turn around and that Reconciliation in this country has barely started, and as a policy has never been put in place.
Is this all offtopic? I hope not as I feel it’s related to polls as Howard will clearly be expecting a bounce from this, and he is hoping to wedge Labor on this issue.
The Greens may benefit from a lower Liberal vote and getting into the two candidate prefered vote seting them up for possible success in the next election (probably a 2008 DD).
Tom:
getting into the two candidate prefered vote
Which seats do you think the greens will come second in ?
bill weller Says:
June 23rd, 2007 at 6:25 pm
It will be very hard for us to win extra Senate seats due to the possible alliance between the ALP and FF in every state except NSW. A very disappointing but expected shift to the religious right by the ALP.
Thank you Bill for your response:
FF only scored 2.0% of the primary vote nationally in 2004. Only 32.8% of FF 2PP preferences went to Labor. Dosent look like much does it. But if you look at the marginal seats up for grabs at the 2007 Federal Election, FF vote becomes significant.
I can see the benefits for the ALP of making an alliance with FF is SA. On 2004 Federal Election figures (a) Makin, Wakefield and Kingston would probably have gone to the ALP (b) Boothby would be well within grasp and (c) ALP marginals (Adelaide and Hindmarsh) would have been protected by an increase in FF 2PP preferences- that makes sense. At the Federal election, FF wont have the advantage they had in the State Election where ‘how to vote’ stuff was pasted on the walls of the polling booths,-but an alliance with the religous right in SA still reads good for Labor on paper.
In other States I dont see much to be gained by an alliance with FF compared to one with the Greens, despite the well documented view that Green preferences ‘directing’ is far less reliable than that of others.
Ive read about ALP-FF negotiations in QLD with nothing yet set in concrete;
Ive heard the ALP in Victoria are resisting making a deal with the Greens because they are ‘playing footsies’ with FF or giving it consideration at least; again nothing set in concrete to date.
Nothing about WA is floating up to us here in QLD.
According to Mr Brown, the Greens is Tassie have stated they will not direct preferences to the ALP unless there is a very good reason to do so.
In NSW, the Green-ALP ‘deal’ may not be very reliable, given that some Green’s in NSW refused to direct preferences to the ALP at the last State Election.
When I sent an email to Senator Feilding asking if FF had made any preference deals with Labor, all i got back (as i expected) was a polite ‘thank you’ for the enquiry and a link to a press release which documented reasons why FF have a problem with the Greens. Duh !!
I am yet to be convinced of a rationale for Labor to ‘play footsies’ with FF in any other State other than SA if the goal is to (a) shore up Labor marginal seats under threat and (b) to use minor parties 2PP preferences to take Coalition marginal seats where the FF primary vote is significant enough to seriously influence the outcome.
I cant find any seats other than in SA where the FF vote was significant enough to win or protect a seat for Labor (in 2004) on the back of stronger FF 2PP preferences except for Bonner in Qld and Braddon in Tasmania.
There are seats outside of SA where FF preferences might make a small contribution (in my opinion not significant ) to protecting Labor marginals from being lost to the Coalition and others where FF preferences could bring the Coalition 2PP margin down to something Labor can have a crack at winning at the next Election after 2007 if the 2PP swing to Labor in the nominated seats is less than current national polls are predicting. Some of these seats could go to Labor in 2007 if the swing is strong enough, and probably will have to go to Labor to win the election.
The Coalition seats I am thinking of would be Lindsay, Page, Bennalong, (NSW) Corangamite ,Deakin, McMillan, Latrobe, Gippsland (VIC), Blair, Herbert, Hinkler (QLD), Kalgoorlie (WA) and Solomon (CLP) currently held by the Coalition.
The marginal Labor seats outside SA an increase in FF 2PP preferences could have a small role in protecting are Banks, Lowe, Parramatta, Richmond (NSW) Ballarat, Bendigo, Holt , Isaacs (VIC) Rankin (QLD), Cowan and Swan (WA).
In this scenario, I am assuming 14 seats will be ALP gains regardless of FF preference influence at the 2007 Election. These are Dobell, Eden Monaro, Macquarie, Wentworth (NSW), Kingston, Makin, Wakefeild, Boothby (SA), Bonner, Moreton (QLD), Hasluck, Stirling (WA), Bass and Braddon (TAS).
If the end game is not necessarily FF assistance with House of Representatives seats, but more motivated toward securing FF assistance in the Senate seats up for grabs in WA, SA, VIC and QLD (in order to avoid a DD in 2008), well i guess that makes sense.
Bob Brown of the Greens lamented-
“Labor, which has 28 seats now, cannot win a Senate majority of 39 seats at this year’s election. So there are two possible outcomes: Howard’s Coalition retains a Senate majority, with Family First as its backup. Or the Greens win the balance of power. If Rudd Labor wins government, it will face a hostile Howard Senate blocking major bills such as industrial relations reform†(Bob Brown, Greens leader :June 8th)
Id be interested in the opinions of people who have been studying federal elections alot longer than i have. Mine is idle speculation- what say you Adam Carr, Bill Weller, Mr Speaker, et al ?
The Greens may pass the Libs in Melbourne, Sydney and Grayndler where the 3 candidate vote difference with the Liberals is below 6%.
STROP-
To me any deal that the ALP does with FF is a deal with the enemy. What next ? Pauline Hanson becomes popular again and if the ALP doesn’t win this time they start chasing her new parties preferences in a bid to win government?? I do not support any party that promotes racism , homophobia, sexism ( Hanson ) or a party that believes God will save those who speak in tongues and that trying to make a difference is to save others from the devil and that he is the only true leader. ( FF ) ( AOG ) This hideous group split families on a regular basis, send people mental and promote HOMOSEXUALITY as sick depraved and can be removed from belief in god.
The one thing that i have as a weapon to this group is my past involvement with them and i can educate possible FF voters of their connection with the AOG church. Its amazing how many devout Christians did not know the connection at the last election.
Bill
I appreciate your analysis of the marginals and the effect that FFP could have. Quite a lot of thought in that post and very objective for a member of “the mortal enemy of FFP”. Quite commendable!
I would add that in Queensland, I think there is more scope for Labor preferences with FFP. Sure, FFP stands a reasonable chance of a senate seat here, made firmer with potential ALP preferences, though in this symbiotic relationship, there could be some Labor spoils too.
In the seat of Brisbane, for example, Arch Bevis (ALP) held since 1990, but in 2004 was faced with the most marginal Labor seat at 0.9%. He was returned 4.0% against a strong and popular Liberal Candidate, chiefly on the backs of both FFP and Nats.
But wait, there’s more for the ALP! Blair, 5.6% marginal LIB at the last election showed FFP primaries at 3.65 to the Greens 2.94. Given recent swings to Labor and every election since this showing FFP rises (though I wouldn’t discount the Greens this year increasing a share), for the ALP, FFP is a better shot to get them over the line.
One more: Bonner. LIBs most marginal in 2004 held on 0.6%. FFP polled at 4.36% and Greens at 4.93%. Admittedly, Greens do look a better choice on primaries, though an FFP preference would take more fuel of the Lib fire and many Greens voters would kayak to Antarctica rather than vote Liberal.. preference deals with ALP or not!
So, I see your point, agree with SA, see that NSW and Vic will be interesting but I would see a lot of merit in throwing ALP preferences to FFP in both SA and Queensland in particular. If they did, I think we’d see Brisbane held with Blair and Bonner won for the ALP.
over to you!
Generic Oracle Says:
June 24th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Bill
I appreciate your analysis of the marginals and the effect that FFP could have. Quite a lot of thought in that post and very objective for a member of “the mortal enemy of FFPâ€. Quite commendable!
Either you are being very funny or you meant to direct your post to STROP.
Strop: wow, how long did it take to write that post ?
My opinion has always been this:
The Greens are the ALP’s whipping-boy. The ALP can treat them however they want and the Greens will keep voting for them. Labor should use and abuse them whenever and wherever possible for any slight advantage that suits them.
But where does it suit them to do a deal with FF ?
SA definitely.
FF did quite well in the QLD Election, much improved on their Federal election performance. With so many seats up for grabs Labor should do a deal there.
FF are weak in NSW and WA, however WA is looking a worry for Labor and a deal with FF might save or win a seat.
There has been such a hooha over Fielding that I doubt Labor in Victoria will be able to do another deal.
Tasmania.. Bob Brown will get nearly a quota so FF will receive Labor preferences if they are still in the race regardless. ie a deal isn’t a big deal in Tassie.
Hi The Speaker I have been having a speech or two and going to community group meetings and talking to business owners , unionists and residents.
Your comment above saddens me [ The Greens are the ALP’s whipping-boy. The ALP can treat them however they want and the Greens will keep voting for them. Labor should use and abuse them whenever and wherever possible for any slight advantage that suits them. ] but id say is true on how the ALP would see us. What would be sadder is if the ALP lost due to its no principle deal with FF.
What would be sadder is if the ALP lost due to its no principle deal with FF.
How would that occur ? You think voters will protest by voting for John Howard who also preferences FF ? Impossible.
*embarrassed grin*
Certainly did mean Strop, Bill, not yourself!
As you know, I’ve been intrigued with FFP on this site and have been researching them since we last talked. I did remember that you weren’t altogether complimentary! Thus I was impressed with the current objectivity, but I must pass this on to Strop. 🙂
I do think the ALP is somewhat taking the Greens for granted, the view from the Left has to be unidirectional with preferences and the dominant view is a big fat Labor hill (with a somewhat closer Democrat Dam slowly sinking into drought).
To completely slaughter this analogy, Labor is off trying to buy rights to the FFP bridge to battler-land, previously on Majority leasehold to the Coalition.
Still, Bob is safe is Tassie, one would expect, and FFP has its work cut out in WA and NSW. Where is this “insider leakage” on Labor preferences with FFP coming from posters? Have I missed something in the media?
I get your point Bill. I was living in Adelaide studying theology at Bible College in Malvern (1980-81) when the AOG were establishing themselves out at Klemzig and claiming exclusive access to ‘salvation’ via speaking in tongues and they continue to regard homosexuality as ‘evil’ etc etc.
However, you argument that Labor doing a deal with FF is a deal with “the enemy” is abit over the top and a tad hypocritical. Depends on whom you consider to be “the enemy” and it what context, yes ?
A case in point: NSW 2001 SENATE ELECTION: In 2001 the Greens polled only 4.3% (0.3 quotas), but won the last seat after receiving preferences from the Coalition and One Nation. In 2004, the Coalition directed its preferences to the Greens ahead of Labor in the Senate across the nation.
I didnt hear any Greens complaining about receiving preferences from One Nation and the Coalition in NSW in 2001 or across the nation in 2004.
However, these preference deals can come undone if the goal is gain Senate seats for Labor-
According to Wikipedia, ” In Victoria, Family First allocated their senate preferences to Labor (2004), in order to help ensure the re-election of the number three Labor Senate candidate, Jacinta Collins. In exchange, Labor gave its Senate preferences in Victoria to Family First ahead of the Greens, expecting Family First to be eliminated before these preferences were distributed. In the event, however, Labor and Democrat preferences helped Family First’s Steve Fielding beat the Green’s David Risstrom to win the last Victorian Senate seat”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_legislative_election,_2004).
I dont think Labor is going to to dodge a preference deal with FF on the grounds that they may be religious fanatics with a penchant for speaking in tongues and exiling practicing homosexuals from their church services, particularly in SA where FF 2PP preferences will impact on 6 marginal seat outcomes.
Considering that of their three elected representatives, only one is AOG, I’m not convinced they’re an AOG party, however you guys keep talking about it like it’s an established fact.
But if I was a Green I would keep saying it and attempting to smear them at all opportunities because it’s good strategy.
Mr Speaker I dont think FF is exclusively the political wing of the AOG either. I said “may be…”;
I know alot of fundamentalist Christian people who identify with FF for other reasons (emphasis on family values etc) It is a good strategy for the Greens though to paint them as a bunch of religious zealots, definitely.
Family First find their money, candidates, man power, core vote and organisational leaders from the AOG church.
However it is not the church’s political wing, but they are very close to it. I suppose its all in the branding
The speaker/Bill/Strop
Yeah, I heard this line on this blogsite, when I started really researching FFP and, particularly, votes made in Senate and Private Member’s bills. I told Bill previously, I found no fanaticism in any stances.
To say that one’s beliefs shouldn’t interfere with politics is naiive and discriminatory, for a country largely known for tolerance and acceptance. For the life of me, I can’t see the difference between having policy influenced by secular humanism, nominal agnosticism, Christianity or any other belief system.
Using this against FFP is just as much a fear campaign as talking about “thuggish unionists” in the ALP, “Cold, calculating big businessmen” in the LIBS and calling Greens “Communists”. As far as I can see, it is just politics.
This is a democracy, just like the voters let the Libs know when WC was getting “fanatical” and dangerous, I think you’d find the same the minute that FFP suggested any policy or position that radical. It’s democracy, it’s not dangerous. Look at One Nation. One “who”?
I think, to the Greens, the real danger has nothing to do with their Christianity (though, as has been correctly stated on this blog, this is far from obvious in the senate) and far more to do with being politically in the centre. This is prime real estate in Australian politics, wedged between the political duopoly we have.
I’d just be careful that the Greens didn’t alienate any more voters with extreme claims of fundamentalism. I can’t see it, it just isn’t there. Just because a party doesn’t share your exact value set, it doesn’t make them extreme.
Families seem to be resonating with the major platforms I read about them in the paper: Tax relief on mortgages, dropping petrol excise, controlling predatory pricing… All core issues, not a radical sniff.
Greens have bleated a little too much about VSU and FFP eventually supporting this. No surprises, really. A significant constituent of Greens support would be previous or current Uni students with involvement in political activism on campus. For a National Political Party hoping for credibility with ALL Australians, this is simply not relevant. Sorry but it is not a big issue and many Average battlers I talk too don’t understand why we have the right to choose to join the union at work but not at Uni.
So this issue seems to be a non-issue. Every party has ideals and beliefs that influence policy that others don’t agree with. That’s why we have parties. FFP is not radical but the true reason for Greens hatred is more than likely political. FFP can and does appeal to both sides of politics. The Greens don’t and support seems to have dropped off.
STROP,
You are correct about the 2004 ALP-FF Senate preference deal. Note that this time Jacinta Collins is the Number 1 Labor Senate candidate and therefore will not need FF preferences to be elected. FF is unlikely to want to preference the other Labor candidates and therefore an ALP-FF Senate deal is less likely. However, if FF really puts the Family First, it will want the Howard Government out of office and should be prepared to assist more morally conservative Labor candidates in order to achieve this. In the world of realpolitic, if the price of such FF support is ALP preferences to FF in the Senate, the ALP will pay the price. It will probably be academic this time, as the Labor vote will give it three quotas in Victoria and the surplus will be insufficient to elect an FF candidate. Given that Labor cannot win control of the Senate this time, it is immaterial who gets the non-Labor Senate seats. If the Greens have any sense, they will swallow their pride, preference Labor throughout the country and wait for the almost inevitable double dissolution to increase their Senate numbers and give them the balance of power.
I took the weekend off to be more silent jas than noisy jas.
Firstly I am not from the left, I am camped firmly in the right in Labor. I applaud the common sense response of Carpenter and Beattie and Fraser. I like Fraser’s ‘I don’t care if it is an election stunt or not lets try and help these people with the sudden energy of the Government.’ I like also Carpenter and Beattie saying what everyone thinks about 11 years not merely of neglect but of active opposition to the traditional owners of Australia, rings hollow against his sudden love.
Was it Fraser that asked what had changed between the Commonwealth’s starve them out policy of just a few months ago and last week, except for the looming of the election?
I think the only risk for Rudd is looking a bit weak Beazley wise, but given Adam’s expressed view, there is only a handful of people like me (apparently in the wrong faction) that thinks his uncritical response is entirely political and weak. So Rudd should lose nothing. He supports mostly and gets to take pot-shots at the most failed elements of a plan that is clearly being made up minute by minute; with less resources and the same detail of planning as the Water Plan. We have seen this kind of con before. This time the PM has made sure no-one with any power gets in his way.
Generic Oracle I am not going to claim a long list of associations and understandings with local traditional owners, nor deny them. That I am cynical about this Prime Minister just means I have been awake over the last 11 years, it doesn’t mean I am from the left nor that I am ill-informed about community matters and what works.
But community does matter in one way Howard is not putting forward community generated ideas, they are not driven by the community, and quite frankly 6 months of troops and police in the streets can only result in more traditional owners in jail? Since they are so underrepresented in Australian jail populations jailing a whole more traditional owners will be a resounding success.
In one of my past lives I was standing with a client outside a local court about to go into session. A 12 year old boy was talking to his mum or aunty and saying essentially that this charge (car stealing from memory) was a real crime, not one of those petty ones, and that he was one of the men now. This was in a major regional centre.
Yes more of Howard and Hansons law and order can’t hurt, and I’m not suggesting anyone should get away with crimes, but really extra police and soldiers on the ground? How are they going to change a culture?
Look at Iraq for the effectiveness of externally imposed democracy and law and order.
Where a community wants to stop alchohol itself or p*&n itself, well that community will have to consider and rise to meet the weaknesses and challenges of prohibition – and good luck to them. But I suspect that the success of the programme stems not from the prohibition, but rather from the community driving to empower itself and outcast the problems from within.
But where it is externally imposed and enforced by troops and police for regional Victoria (or more laughably Tasmania) in the streets I tend to suggest that the community is more likely to come together to defeat the invader than it is to embrace them in the liberators in the streets.
Hope I’m wrong but the six month window, looks like it is ‘just a till after the election’ thing; the resource commitment so far seems laughably small in the face of a national emergency, compare and contrast the cost of this response to our sitting in Iraq for 5 years because Bush needs us there? And as Fraser suggested this morning they are making it up as they go and not prepared to talk to Queensland and WA who have experience and decades of failure to share with Howard and his new found interest in the traditional owners of this fine land.
“What would be sadder is if the ALP lost due to its no principle deal with FF.”
I think it is a sad development of our PR system in the senate that people think preference deals need to be made on principle. Surely people are standing for parliament for a party whose ideals they believe in, so their primary aim should be to get themselves elected. That is the principled stand. Until we get rid of parties setting their preferences (move to a NSW LC model) I say do whatever deal it takes to get you elected.
Jasmine
Since you’re posting, I assume you’re reading the blog as well. You commented not so long ago that Steve Keen’s ‘Debunking Economics’ was a book you had read and liked. Thanks for the tip, as I read it myself, and there were (unusually for attacks on ‘orthodox economics’) one or two things I had not already learnt in first year classes some years back.
Two things. First, can I suggest you read social democratic economist John Quiggin’s review of that book in the Economic Review in 2002. Second, to reinforce what Quiggin says: Keen’s critique is largely useless (aside from one or two points, as I mentioned) a) because it attacks a straw man – most economists outside the extremist Chicago School do not believe most of the things he is attacking – and b) because a number of the critiques, particularly the foundational attacks on general equilibrium and monopoly/competition, are simply wrongheaded.
And finally – I urge you to pick up a copy of the US economist Paul Krugman’s popular works, especially ‘Peddling Prosperity’ and ‘Pop Internationalism’. Your view of economics is fundamentally inaccurate, and as long as you continue reading only those people who share your own flawed understanding, you will be an intelligent person who lacks the information to apply your intelligence properly (sorry if you find that description offensive).
Apologies to Mr Bowe for such a completely off-topic post, but it bothers me when perfectly intelligent people resolutely insist on viewing economics from such a jaundiced and inaccurate view as that offered by Steve Keen and his ilk.
Sorry – Quiggin’s review was in the Economic RECORD not the Economic Review… momentary brain-to-keyboard problem.
Well not that it makes much difference to you Leopold because your comment holds basically correct, all other things being equal (and without the defendant conceding the ‘fundamentally inaccurate’ point) it would be true to say that beyond year 12 economics (mostly mars bars and donkeys from memory – I was a country girl long story) my thinking about economics has been relatively limited, and I’ve drawn relatively limited views of any sort. So it would probably be more accurate to say Mr Keen influenced me, much more than me reading someone I liked. Although I have been heavily influenced by a certain Canadian Historian who I think you would not like as well.
And surely like any highly specialised, highly focused, completely opaque to most outsiders: Economics, like Law, like Factional Poliltics and like polling science needs to be tough enough to withstand a few jaundiced outside views?
But next long plane flight I have, I’ll put aside Ralston-Saul and Tax Lawyer Weekly to enjoy your recommendations …
dembo Says:
June 25th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
I say do whatever deal it takes to get you elected.
Im sorry but i cannot support this way of self election. I could not live with myself gaining a seat on the preferences from e.g. racist or homophobic party. People that do, have no morals or principles.
Well Bill, what are you doing in the Greens then ? (See my post above )
Yes I can see some value in a FF-Labor preference deal in QLD now, thanks. In NSW the Greens-ALP deal puts FF on the ‘who cares’ pile I suppose and in WA, as others have pointed out, FF is not strong, yet. Talking about WA, I noted the Premier of WA on “Today” this morning rejecting JWHs request for police and basically saying ‘too little too late mate’. Premier Beattie hasnt boo about it up here in QLD yet ; probably too busy fighting off Labor election strategists bitching about the potential damage his pig-headed determination to amalagamate city councils is going to have on Labor’s pitch at Coalition seats in rural-provincial areas.
Bill
This is precisely why the Greens will never achieve any objective of being a governing party in Australia. If you will not yield nor compromise values, nor work with the government of the day (as the democrats have done), “no one will want to play with the Greens”, Bill. Mainstream Australia will not bend that far and I think the chances of becoming a major player are slim.
I respect the Greens being true to their principles, but I always find great hypocrisy with those who espouse tolerance…. for everything people believe that fits nicely into the set of accepted values of their party then scorn, vitriol and exaggeration for the rest!
If you think that those Greens who preference other parties like FFP and (presumably) ONP have no morals and principles, then I’d hate to think what you think of the parties themselves!! This is the kind of vilification and discrimination that the Left supposedly abhors..
Further, I believe that statements like those you have made detract a little from the sentiment on the forum, to discuss federal politics in as objective and informative a way as we can. Your statement has certainly not warmed me to the Greens.
Mars bars and donkeys… sounds like an interesting long story.
‘Mainstream’ economics certainly does need to be tough enough to stand up to jaundiced outside views, and in general it is (or is flexible enough to adapt when they score a hit).
I’m merely suggesting that it might deepen your appreciation and understanding of economic policy debate (you certainly take a strong and even passionate interest in tax and IR from memory) if you looked at both sides of the story. 😉
By the way, a point of mutual interest… and actually relevant to the website… what do you reckon Mr Smith’s chances are of taking the opposition leader’s office should Heavy Kevvie lose/implode? Would he be the ‘Right’ candidate to take on Gillard do you think?
Generic Oracle Says:
June 25th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
This is precisely why the Greens will never achieve any objective of being a governing party in Australia. If you will not yield nor compromise values, nor work with the government of the day (as the democrats have done), “no one will want to play with the Greensâ€, Bill. Mainstream Australia will not bend that far and I think the chances of becoming a major player are slim.
So Generic Oracle i need to compromise on Homophobia and racism {to name just two } to win vote? My workplace was always racist and homophobic but i always stood firm and now these same people have tolerance and some even enjoy the more extroverted gay men on Big Brother etc. Yes there is still an underlying thread of racism but its has been watered down greatly to the point where Asian and Aboriginal people have been seen as human and nice. What i am saying is that if you make a stand long enough people will be interested in why and thats where you can show that we are all equal. I would hope that writers on here would support such principles
My understanding is that Mr Smith may have one or two enemies in caucus, but it surely is a possibility; but a choice from the right would always be correct?
I take your point on tax and IR, and yes I’ve run into economics in both.
Bill said:
I could not live with myself gaining a seat on the preferences from e.g. racist or homophobic party.
You’d better ask Kerry Nettle to resign. She won her seat on One Nation preferences.
The Speaker Says:
You’d better ask Kerry Nettle to resign. She won her seat on One Nation preferences.
I am talking about actively negotiating prefs from racist etc groups
In the past the greens have try to do a deal with one nation,the Shooters.
So bill in you eyes Kerry Nettle has (in your words) “no morals or principles” is that true? Because is got 86.9 from One Nation a “racist or homophobic partyâ€
Because is she got 86.9 prefs from One Nation a “racist or homophobic partyâ€
Thank goodness for the Greens and their principaled stand on all issues.
For some on this site all to keen to sacrifice their principale in order to achieve power, it must be a shock to you.
What’s with James trying to put words into bills mouth,
If One Nation want to give preferances to whoever that’s up to them.
The Green never have done a deal with One Nation, so stop trying to green wash and smear their good reputation, thats the job of the Murdoch press .
One thing I was not saying that the green have in the past done a deal with one nation but THEY HAD TRY TO DO ONE IN THE PAST
Yes the Green are so principled they voted down a nuclear plant plebiscite bill in the vic parliament
And I did not put words in bills mouth I was just Quoting this
bill weller Says:
June 25th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
dembo Says:
June 25th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
I say do whatever deal it takes to get you elected.
Im sorry but i cannot support this way of self election. I could not live with myself gaining a seat on the preferences from e.g. racist or homophobic party. People that do, have no morals or principle
I personally am ridiculously happy for progressives to be elected by backwards reactionary types ahead of other backwards reactionary types, or major parties for that matter. It’s neither principled nor unprincipled.
James I cannot do deals with ON or FF on principles. Its against what i believe
It’s not as if your principles are costing you electorally, Bill. The next member for Kingston will be Labor or Liberal. It won’t be a Green. Come back and say that when you’re polling 30%+ on primaries and then principles mean something.
Envy said:
Thank goodness for the Greens and their principaled stand on all issues.
Your Green candidate Bill Weller was on here a few weeks back touting the rightness of shutting down television stations because they help “capitalist enslavement”, and also supported shutting down multi-national owned wineries in his electorate.
Are these your Green Principles ?
Forgive me if I take criticisms of other parties by the Greens with a massive grain of salt.
The Speaker Says:
Your Green candidate Bill Weller was on here a few weeks back touting the rightness of shutting down television stations because they help “capitalist enslavementâ€, and also supported shutting down multi-national owned wineries in his electorate.
Are these your Green Principles ?
Where did i say that i wanted either shutting TV stations or wineries?
edward o Says:
June 27th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Bill. The next member for Kingston will be Labor or Liberal. It won’t be a Green. Come back and say that when you’re polling 30%+ on primaries and then principles mean something.
I have never stated i have any chance of winning Kingston but a win for me is to increase our vote and profile and that means having principles that you stick with. None of this NO AWAs well maybe some gee lets call it something different. Oh and the removal of the right to strike or organize a YR@W campaign under a possible ALP government. Nothing disgusts voters more than broken promises and U turns. Why do you think the polls are slowly moving back to Howard? With still months to go before the election i can see ( as i have stated before ) Howard getting to that winnable point. Then what??? Who will the ALP members and supporters on here blame? The Greens? Its is very sad watching the ALP twisting and turning trying to clone the Libs to the point where many swinging voters i know are now backing Howard again. Reason Better the Devil thats in rather than one that is not staying with the original promises and stance
YR@W – NO AWAs nothing less
– The right to strike or organize if the ALP hits the worker.
I have seen a complete turnaround by some union bosses in their working class rhetoric and are now playing dead. Anyone here that believes Rudd and co will win easy is delusional and thinking that he will win at all is at best fingers crossed
Bill, not my point. What you’re doing is of course admirable, although I would never vote Green in my life (early exposure to Drew Hutton back when I lived in Brisbane ruined me, what can I say?).
The point I was making is that you were saying you cannot do deals on principle, whereas that’s laughable. You have nothing to deal with. You can’t offer FF or ON preferences in the either house because your voters don’t follow HTVs anyway. They can’t offer you preferences in Kingston because you won’t get within a bulls’ roar of the final 2PP cut.
Also, spare the NO AWAs stuff, that’s not a response to anything I’ve said. I’ll just say I support AWAs for those who want to sign them and leave the politics at that.
Sorry Edward the AWA stuff was not leveled at you but just showing how both the ALP and ACTU can change to fit what they think people want.
As for the prefs i am talking IF i was in a position to win.
Interesting to note that a leaflet put out by Senator Wortley on Rudds promise to build new trade centers in Kingston naming my daughters high school as one of them to receive this great future. The problem is the State Government poo pooed that idea as they want to close our school down due to numbers dropping. oh and its prime real estate. Ya got to love it when pollies dont know whats going on in my electorate and dont seem to communicate betwenn State and Federal. Couple this with the disappointment of local community groups with the ALP candidate and major parties overall does well for the range of candidates from small parties and independents
Bill you naivity is showing again- but carry on, I love idealists; they give me something other than myself to laugh about.
Bill said:
Where did i say that i wanted either shutting TV stations or wineries?
Here:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/477#comments