Possibly presaging a future pattern of early-week phone polls to tie us over until the Friday face-to-face, Roy Morgan brings us a phone survey of 611 respondents showing Labor leading the Coalition 59-41 on two-party preferred, and by 50 per cent to 36 per cent on the primary vote. Morgan alternated between phone surveys and larger-sample face-to-face polls until the end of August, after which it moved exclusively to face-to-face.
Thanks Kina..did you check Charles put up on 206 ?
To back up Adams comments re death penalty and its effect on the wet liberal vote, note the speed of ACT senator Gary Humphries to ensure he is on record agreeing with Rudd. He is in some danger of losing his senate spot to a green candidate and knows only too well that educated, liberal Liberals hate the concept of the death penalty.
For those that like classical instead of rock music
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQdVJL2CO9o
[I think it is good in principle and good politics. What are the Liberals going to say? They support capital punishment? As long as it is done somewhere else by someone else?]
Well, that is exactly what Howard, Costello and Downer said today.
In fact, Howard said that he personally opposes the death penalty, but thinks the bali bombers should be subjected to the death penalty in the space of 3 sentences.
Why none of the media pointed this inconsistency out to him I have no idea.
The People’s Court commends Citizen John Rocket who whilst flawed may still be saved as demonstrated by this post:
441
John Rocket Says:
October 9th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Stupid, stupid, stupid politics. Mr. McClelland should be beaten with one of those long Singaporean whipping canes… “dunno about capital punishment but I’ll certainly say yes to corporal punishment… Mr. McClelland… thwack… take that you fool.†As if this’ll be forgotten!
And they wonder why Mr. Rudd is a control freak. This ill-begotten son of his ill-begotten father has given the Liberals their first home run of the year… on the eve of the election – to boot! London is too good for him! Hell! Pacific Islands is to good for him! Top of the list for replacement should the ALP win the election. By god, if there is something that annoys me about the ALP it’s this father/son – father/daughter thing that’s been going on for too long.
so let me get this straight –
Howard is opposed to the death penalty. But not if someone else does it somewhere else.
In other words he is not opposed to the death penalty…
or have I missed something?
Because the media are dumb.. only interested in trivia these days… and of course most want a closer contest..
Of course you could argue that you generally oppose the death penalty but for such a serious crime as terrorism you will not outright object to the death penalty being used. You could be accused of hypocrisy for such a stance, but if you can live with that then go ahead.
Personally, again I have to say the best option is to say you’re opposed to the death penalty, that will be your position diplomatically but you will not comment on individual cases involving non-citizens. That is the role of the justice system of that country. Our role is pursuing the goal of the abolition of the death penalty internationally, not in ‘saving’ a particular criminal.
Showson
This aint toastmasters debating, campaigns are about the trivial, the mundane and the petty – if Labor comes out with wussy stuff like this in the campaign they will be crucified.
I think today guarantees parliament will be back next week – a little pressure and who knows which hereditary peer might drop the ball on the Labor front bench.
As I noted on an earlier post look at what the master, William Jefferson Clinton did on capital punishment:
Bill Clinton flew back to Arkansas in the middle of the campaign season to preside over the execution of Ricky Ray Rector who when asked why he hadnt finished his final meal said “I left some for laterâ€. It was suggested at the time that Ricky Ray had the mental age of an 11 year old.
Where does religon and your belief in it sit in regards to the death penalty…Howard a believer in Christian principles also believes in the death penalty?
They’ve tried the smear and it hasn’t worked, in fact its backfired…Short of some compromising pictures of Rudd in a brothel with a nun on election eve I don’t see them hitting pay dirt. The thing is, elections aren’t won on smear campaigns, peoples voting intentions tend to gestate over long periods of time and aren’t made up on the spot cos Costello says one night on the tele that the Labor party support the Bali bombers. Not when you have something as profound and potent as workchoices. That being said, McClellands speech, though clearly sound in content was an astonishing gaff on the eve of an election. The rabid, petty, and highly partisan Australian press were always going to see to that. ITs all very well for the SMH to editorialise in favour of McClelland but they ran a headline today along the lines that Labor were supporting the Bali Bombers.
I also note that noone I know has mentioned a word about this story. They’re not interested.
Now,
to get back on track from the latest pathetic attempt at wedging (why the hell didn’t we pick the Death Penalty? so obvious),
how much longer can he put it off?
Poor old bugger, must be reminded that despite his best efforts Oz is still a democracy. Must be nearly killing him.
Presumably they go to a better life in the next world, Marky Marky and leave this vale of tears.
Marky Marky says Says:
October 9th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
As I said in a previous post, the 5th or 6th commandment ( depending on your sect) is pretty straight forward. “Thou shall not” doesn’t seem to have many loop holes to me.
I said when I heard this first thing today that it was a stupid thing for McClelland to say, but if the government thinks it will get yardage out of its attack being fronted by that simpering tosspot Alexander Downer it has another thing coming.
As for the inconsistency in the govt being against the DP but not oppposing it in this case, the matter was raised by David Speers on Agenda on Sky. Downer’s response is actually what prompted my rant in this post.
His postured, feigned indignation and contrived personal affront whenever he makes comment on these issues is as hollow as the point of the dum dum bullet they’ll probably use on the bombers themselves. His effort was sad, he almost cried it was that pathetic.
Asking for a sensible comment from Downer on these things is as ill-advised as looking in your handkerchief after you’ve blown your nose.
Dire.
Stop the dog whistling, it’s deafening!
Howard: “I’m against the death penalty”, but I’m ‘tough on terrorists’ is just having a cynical bet both ways.
Rudd: “I’m against the death penalty”, but I’m not about to get wedged by cynical Liberals masquerading as tough guys, is being just as disingenuous.
Call this one a draw for the two major parties but a whopping great loss for any notion of principle in public debate.
The best summary I have heard on Howard and, by someone who knows him quite well – Keating.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKN4qWo7x1Y&mode=related&search=
My question again, if an Australian committed a terrorist act overseas should they also be subject to the death penalty?
Sean I don’t blame the media for being all over the idiotic Mr. McClelland had to say last night-
It is their core business to sell newspapers and nothing else [except advertising space] and that is a pretty ‘sensational’ quote to tempt the ‘perhaps’ consumer walking past the newsstand to buy the bloody thing.
Nobody at the Government Gazette et al put those words into his mouth, Rudd’s own office [or should I say orifice in this case] put that stuff out. Stupid moves like that can build into 1-2 % election value if you play it right.-
Meantime, the WORKCHOICES issue looms large and causes me to rest in peace at night knowing there is no way around that lemon for JWH.
[Howard is opposed to the death penalty. But not if someone else does it somewhere else.
In other words he is not opposed to the death penalty…
or have I missed something?]
That’s my point. He along with Costello and Downer are hypocrites. They want to say they oppose the death penalty, but they don’t actually oppose it.
As with lots of other issues, it seems that the Liberal party’s own policy on the death penalty is non-binding.
[This aint toastmasters debating, campaigns are about the trivial, the mundane and the petty – if Labor comes out with wussy stuff like this in the campaign they will be crucified.]
Campaigning against the death penalty wussy? For advocating a policy and sticking to it. Today Costello, Downer and Howard ran away from their party’s own policy.
319
Marky Marky says Says:
.
Easy for me, no. And I can see whats coming for some poor sucker that answers yes.
[My question again, if an Australian committed a terrorist act overseas should they also be subject to the death penalty?]
According to Howard, Downer, Costello no, because they are Australian. But if they were non-Australian, then that’s fine, because they are all supporters of the death penalty.
So do you Charles believe in the death penalty for the Bali Bombers?
Actually Rudd is a bigger hypocrite he’s always been against the death penalty and yet he rebukes his shadow for foreign affairs for outlining a Labor policy which Rudd has always supported…so Rudd does support sparing the lives of terrorists but because it would hurt him politically now he says Labor shouldnt have this policy…
The Liberals don’t like the death penalty but when people murder 88 Australians and a court sentences them to death we aren’t going to plead for their lives like Rudd and co would…
Showson,
Politicians are expedient hypocrites, the point is to build structures that limit the potential for hypocrisy.
Robert McClelland is a very earnest individual – not unlike say Daryl Williams – hopeless at politics but will be a diligent minister until he is elbowed aside in his second term to a posting.
A campaign is a rabid environment – the hospital guy yesterday would have cost Howard and this one today would have cost Labor. Is it fair? No. Is it politics? Yes
When does on the Couch with BlindOptimist start tonight?
[Actually Rudd is a bigger hypocrite he’s always been against the death penalty ]
Same with Downer, Howard, and Costello. Unless it is a time when they are supporting the death penalty.
This is another example of how opportunistic they are, they don’t have any principles left, which is why most Australians what them gone.
[The Liberals don’t like the death penalty but when people murder 88 Australians and a court sentences them to death we aren’t going to plead for their lives like Rudd and co would…]
Which means they support the death penalty, and should stop prefacing remarks at press conferences by saying they oppose the death penalty. It’s just more hypocritical crap that will get them nowhere.
Watching Rudd on the 7:30 report tonight was, frankly, tedious.
If Howard wasn’t so abysmal then I would be truly sorry that our potential PM is so plastic and forced.
However, in a situation as dire as this one the proverbial Drover’s Dog would be a welcome alternative. (Although possibly more interesting than this Mattell -like opposition.)
Nice question Marky.
Personally I am opposed to the death penalty, I think it is more cruel to imprison someone for life and them knowing they will die on prison.
Apparently Bryant has tried to take his life many times and someone said it would be more humane to execute him rather than let him live another 30 or so years in solitary. Similar with Milat and Knight, they will die old men in prison.
The question mark over the Bali bombers though is that if they are not executed they may get pardoned or escape sometime in the future, and conditions in the Indonesia prisons may not be as harsh as in Australia.
Jen 328
All true but what are die grunen doing about it? How do you propose to force change? By being rubbed on the belly (metaphorically) by Senator Conroy?
Sorry Glen; Rudd came up with the perfect answer:
“Letting them rot in prison and getting out in a pine box doesn’t turn them into a martyr”.
Labor is not only tough on terrorism, they use their god given brains.
So sad, another wedge turns into marshmallow.
[Apparently Bryant has tried to take his life many times and someone said it would be more humane to execute him rather than let him live another 30 or so years in solitary. ]
Apparently Bryant is currently in solitary confinement in a mental institution.
Jen,
the dogs bark and Rudd muzzles them… I totally agree with you… i turned it over and watched SBS.. more educational and interesting not the say nothing do nothing interviews which you learn nothing…
This issue is boring me so much and as i write this i see the Arctic for the first time ever melted through so boats can now travel through it… This is frightening and this should be issue…
The People’s Department of Justice hereby dismisses the People’s Court for gross incompetence in that it did not charge one, Edward St John, with corruptly showing bias.
Edward,
The People Department of Justice outranks you. In the words of Donald Trump: ” You’re fired”. The Tribe has spoken.
Marky Marky,
Change from within or change from without?
ESJ I agree with you, JWH will probably get everyone back to Canberra next week to test out the “glass jaw” theory re Kevin Rudd and hopefully give more shadows [who don’t cast a shadow: very clever that comment about Mr Garrett] an opportunity to come out of the Rudd/Gillard shadow and take abit more polish off the Labor brand.
I certainly would give it some serious consideration; might be a net gain if you take into account the ‘wasting taxpayers money’ discourse Labor would undoubtedly be rabbiting on about all week.
ESJ,
being rubbed on the belly by Senator Conroy I admit holds little appeal. I may have to rethink my candidacy…
Not worth a lot but the latest figures of the Channel 9 Poll
Should we withdraw our troops after the death of an Australian soldier:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/vote.aspx?v=9&q=
Did pretty well on the 7.30 report.
Good to hear someone speak who doesnt give themselves 20 side doors, back doors and sundry escape routes to deny what was said at a later time – aka Howard. Rudd’s straight talk and not dishonest talk that have become used to with some others.
The People’s Department of Justice hereby dismisses the People’s Court for gross incompetence in that it did not charge one, Edward St John, with showing bias.
Edward,
The People’s Department of Justice outranks you. In the words of Donald Trump: “You’re fired”. The tribe has spoken.
Glen and EStJ,
I am back, as I said I would be, from interstate. I fart in your general direction. Glen knows perfectly well what I have found, and his pathetic attempts to waffle about statistics show it. And you EStJ, are you his nanny, or minder? The plagiarism software I have access to at Uni also has a style tester. Glen has three, and EStJ four, at least. Stick your Peoples’ Court up JWH’s fundamental. You are frauds, and everybody here has recognised it.
cheers,
Alan H
Yes it will be interesting once the pressure comes on how many of the Labor Shadows do wet their pants.
As JWH said to KR “You havent been born in Australian politics”
Being the whipping boy for so long has certainly given him a hide. I would certainly like to hear more from Labor’s national security batman and robin – remember these names : Arch Bevis (another heriditary peer) and Joel Fitzgibbon.
So from reading these comments here on Rudd’s 7.30 report interview I get half saying he was terrible and half saying he was the second coming of Jesus.
Makes me glad I’m not a member of a political party!
Anyhow I get the distinct feeling this is all going to devolve into nonsense so best take my leave now!
Please call the election Mr Howard. I honestly don’t care who wins anymore, I just want it over with so the hysteria coming from both sides can end. Losing an election isn’t the end of the world!
Should we withdraw our troops… Yes from both Iraq and Afganistan.. The Taliban were an American creation and should be their responsiblity…
[As JWH said to KR “You havent been born in Australian politicsâ€]
This was Howard at his most arrogant, showing a great deal of hubris.
He seems to think all opposition leaders need to lose an election before they can win one, but that’s an old rule that applies to relics like him, but not necessarily politicians in the future.
Oh my goodness,
Has somebody been mixing “Clear” or testosterone in the latte in the inner city coffee shops tonight,
A feral academic – Alan H 339 & a feral democrat Paul K 338. I feel the gently refreshing feel of the wet lettuce hitting my skin already..
ShowsOn #265:
Exactly. Rudd can amend the CEA for fixed 3 year terms. He needs to pass a Referendum to introduce 4 year terms.
I think most people would approve of 3 year parliaments if the terms were fixed. It provides a combination between certainty and regular accountability at the ballot box.
Something tells me that Rudd is laying the groundwork to hold a Referendum in about 12-18 months.
If, as PM, he is enjoying a significant honeymoon then he could announce a concurrent snap election and save the extra expense. That would justify an early, expensive and unnecessary poll.
Just my mind ticking over as I look at the tea leaves at bottom of my cup.
CETP:
he wasn’t terrible.
He was just the same as all the others (on both sides)
Careful, righteous, indignant, and manufactured by his PR Machine. Even his face is too made up.
Oh, for some passion and energy!
Jen,
I believe we are on the same page – but you do realise you need to do a “nader” before you can break through?
I didn’t watch it but knew what to expect… just keep everything to script and it will be fine… machine men winding up the robot … hundreds without the thousands… Spot on no passion and very little vision.
Now RBJ is getting to the gist of the matter over the Bali bombers. The only grounds on which judicial killing can be ethically justified is that there are compelling reasons of state which override the standard ethical and practical objections to it in criminal law (that it is not a deterent, that innocent people may be executed, that it lowers us to the same standard as the criminal etc). This was held to be the case with the Nazi war criminals. In the circumstances of 1945 it was held that it was too dangerous to allow people who had committed such crimes to remain alive and possibly become the focus of loyalty for a revived Nazi movement. In the case of the Bali bombers, unrepentent Isl*mist jih*dists who would certainly repeat their crimes if given the chance, the argument is that their indefinite secure detention cannot be guaranteed in a country like Indonesia where corr*ption is rife and the political future is unpredictable, and that therefore the public safety requires their execution. Unless you are a total pacifist, you cannot argue that it is unethical to kill in self-defence. The argument is that judicial killing in these circumstances amounts to ethically permissible self-defence. I’m not entirely persuaded by this but it is a powerful argument.