The first honeymoon Newspoll has Labor leading 46 per cent to 35 per cent on the primary vote and 58-42 on two-party preferred (hat tip to James J). Kevin Rudd has a predictably massive 68-11 lead as preferred prime minister, and personal ratings of 59 per cent satisfied, 11 per cent unsatisfied and 30 per cent undecided. However, Brendan Nelson has also started well with a surprisingly strong 36 per cent approval rating – although his 19 per cent disapproval is also high under the circumstances, as demonstrated by this table showing earlier opposition leaders’ ratings at their first Newspolls:
| Satisfied | Dissatisfied | Undecided | |
| Andrew Peacock (June 1989) | 22 | 50 | 28 |
| John Hewson (April 1990) | 33 | 15 | 52 |
| Alexander Downer (May 1994) | 31 | 12 | 57 |
| John Howard (February 1995) | 45 | 23 | 32 |
| Kim Beazley (April 1996) | 39 | 15 | 46 |
| Simon Crean (December 2001) | 30 | 25 | 45 |
| Mark Latham (December 2003) | 32 | 17 | 51 |
| Kim Beazley (February 2005) | 40 | 22 | 38 |
| Kevin Rudd (December 2006) | 41 | 10 | 49 |
| Brendan Nelson (January 2008) | 36 | 19 | 45 |
The only point of comparison for an incoming government in Newspoll’s historical data (which goes back to 1985) is the Howard government’s debut entry of 52 per cent to 34 per cent on the primary vote, with no two-party figure available. Past incoming prime ministers’ ratings were Paul Keating’s 21 per cent satisfied, 42 per cent dissatisfied and 37 per cent uncommitted, and John Howard’s 45 per cent, 12 per cent and 43 per cent.
Hiya zoom –
my point about Garrett is that he hasn’t got any of the concessions in any of the environmental issues he has publicly and repeatedly supported. I actually feel sorry fro him, as I think he really is a man of integrity, but misjudged the cost of compromising your principles. (And what about the power he would have had if he had stood for the senate as a Green , and possible held the BOP?)
As for Bob on climate change vs Tassie forests: they are not mutually exclusive issues, adn the Greens have lobbied long and hard for a range of strategies on enery, water, reducing emmission etc etc as well as logging. It is not an either/or argument.
If you want to see detailed policy positions check out the website. There is extensive information, which might answer some of your questions.
Give him time, Jen. Too early to judge much about a government that hasn’t even had a Parliamentary sitting yet. He’s been able to do far more on the Japanese whaling issue than any previous Environmental Minister (because they did SFA) and did get to attend Bali as a representative of the Government – neither of which would have been possible to him as a Greens Senator.
Didn’t say it was either/or on Tasmanian forests, but Brown made it crystal clear in 2004 that Labor’s stance on these would determine Green preferences. I have had a lot of conversations since with fervid Green supporters who made it clear that, as a result of this, they saw Tfs as the most important environmental issue (they have since switched to cc but without any questioning of Brown’s stance). Linking preference deals to climate change would have got the message out there in the general public’s awareness a lot sooner. (The beginning, I must say, of my viewing Brown in a far more cynical light).
I’m not interested in policy stances, as much as policy action. I’m decrying the failure of the Greens as a party (not as individuals) to stand alongside governments and take some of the political flak when these governments do the right thing environmentally (and get accused of doing so to please the Greens, which is even more ironic).
I’m also frustrated (you’d never guess) by the idea put forward in previous posts that without the Greens there would be no action on some of these issues, which implies that there is no push for them within the ALP itself, a very arrogant and ignorant stance to take.
Zoom, thankyou for your reply, I am sure that if we met personally that we would have more in common than differences. I appreciate your comments about questioning a party’s shortcomings and it is good that you are in the Labor Party plugging away at policy. I greatly respect that. By the way , I have voted Labor on some occasions , but not in recent times. I greatly admired Gough Whitlam, Paul Keating, Don Dunstan and John Bannon. Thankyou for sharing about your childhood. I well realise that life is a very difficult journey for many people, but at least we have some ‘passion’ about various issues and hopefully, I will be able to express myself in a clearer way in the future. I wanted to say I support some form of civil union for ‘all’ couples that want their relationships recognised by the state, but outside of the marriage situation. The only reason that I have concerns about gay parenting , adoption etc. is that the Australian community may only just be able to cope with 2 people of the same gender living together, there are so many who still associate homosexuality with pedophilia, that I believe one issue at a time may be warranted. Unjust I know , but one small step at a time. I admire your all out approach! Yes, I do admire John Stanhope and his goverment for their progressive policies and I pray that the Rudd Government will allow the states and territories to enact legislation that those jurisdictions have passed. I would be wonderful if some of these issues would be finalised as such. I think many people just want to get on with their lives and just be treated like everyone else. The Berlin Wall came down, I thought I would never see that , so I live in hope! I have to share that I have some concerns about the Labor Right and the Catholic link , but that is my baggage. I also have never recovered from Senator Fielding’s election. But I can assure you , I have NO sympathy for the ‘Other Side” at all.
zoom –
I think in our defence, that the TF’s were a hotter political issue in 2004 than the increasing awareness (and urgency) of climate change is in the curent political debate. Your argument, That Bob Brown could have raised the profile of CC is perhaps overestimating our influence on the electorate- CC has had much bigger advocates than Bob could ever be: Al Gore, to name one and we are`all more informed (well, apart from some of the head in the sand sceptics), and more prepared to vote accordingly.
As for not taking the flack when the governemnt does something right, we actively disagree witha number of federal and state government decisions. This does not mean we do not support the decisions that we are in agreement with (ie Kyoto – but disappointed in the targets). So we can hardly be expected to stand beside them, when we are lobbying for different outcomes. We want the proposed Tasmanian pulp mill stopped, no dredging of Port phillip bay, no nuclear mining, stop ther logging of old growth forests for woodchips, no pipeline from Goulburn to Melbourne, no desalination plants etc etc. Labour is supporting all of these, so how can you expect us to support them when we are opposing them??
Ta Brenton. Similar concerns about Labor Right and the Catholics, which is why I don’t belong to a faction (was pleased to see myself described as a Labor moderate).
I was so anti Fielding that I ditched the Labor HTV and stood there putting in all the numbers from 1 – 74, after making some very loud noises to the people responsible!
Good for you zoom:
the preferncing of the Fundies was one of the lowest points of Labour in recent history. I know lots of labour voters who were as appalled as you were. And some who now vote Green as a direct result.
Jen, I think I made it clear which issues I thought the Greens should stand up and be counted on. I’m not saying they have to whole heartedly agree with everything a particular Government is doing, or even every aspect of a particular environmental action, but I am saying that I’d have more respect for them if, say, Bob Brown had visited the High Plains in support of the removal of cattle or a massed Greens rally was organised to support windfarms at a contested location.
It’s also a bit contradictory when some bloggers here claim the Greens recognised the importance of cc as an issue way back beyond the dawn of time (I’m getting all rhetorical again) and you appear to think it only emerged post 2004.
Surely, if the Greens were aware even five years ago of the importance of cc as an issue, they could have used their preference deal to highlight this with the major parties?
And what is it anyway? – either you don’t have an influence on the electorate or you do. If you don’t, then you are irrelevant (I’m not saying you are, just questioning your line of argument).
zoom 155, I think the Greeks said ‘all things in moderation’ , so I think that is a good approach. I loved your story about filling in all of the numbers 1 to 74. I think it is good to study who all of the candidates are and I also like to make my own decisions about preferences, no matter what the HTV cards say.
How can you build dams when CC has caused more droughts & less consistent rains in the same areas for dams
Ron
The destruction of the economy and the death of a lot of people is different to the end of our species and the destruction of the planet.
Some entertaining reading to give you a longer term view
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene
Eocene period happened, the planet recovered and we are here.
We are just a blip; as a species we are only a couple of hundred thousand years old; we have seen the last ice age end but little else. We may cause another Eocene period, but form the planets point of view, so what, the cycle starts again.
Based in history, in a few million years, whatever comes after will dig up our fossils and wonder what killed the mammals much as we ask, what killed the dinosaurs. Based on history it is a safe bet our period will end.
Dealing with global warming is about trying to preserve what is, perhaps it is about saving our species ( but I doubt it) it’s not about saving the planet. Entertaining thought when you consider Glen goes on about how Rudd should take into account the cost to the economy.
zoom –
I am not saying that climate change has only recently become an issue, but that it was not an electoral issue as much prior to this election. Which is not a good thing ,and there have been many people (including Bob Brown) trying to make it better understood for many years. However it took more than local Politics to wake up the electorate, which thankfully has happened.
The either/or positiins you take are too Extereme (there’s irony for you!!). It is not that we do or do not have any influence- it is the degree and timing of what we can do politically.
As for the high plain grazing issue , I totally agree with you: we should have had much more public support for the banning of this as a response to the Akubra/ Drizabone blockades. We did our limited bit in Indi to support this in the media .However one of the most legitimate criticisms of the Greens is that we are not always well organised. We are the first to admit it, but we have v. limited resources both financial and people. It’s getting better all the time though.
zoom , as Ali G said, “You are the main man” at the moment! You will have to start your own site!
It’s post election relevance deprivation syndrome, and it’s got to stop!
enjoying the conversation between Brenton,zoom and Jen.
a nice change from the same ol Rightoids and Kevin 07ers.
oh,and zoom, just who were the Labor dolts who delivered Fielding.
Names pls
Apparently Alan Stockdale is in line to become the next President of the Liberal Party, with the aim of ‘rebuilding’ the Party, if we can take Imre Salusinkszy seriously:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23105188-601,00.html
Victorians will remember Alan Stockdale well as Treasurer in the Kennett government and afficionado of privatisation and neoliberalism. Since Kennett was unceremoniously booted out of office (Steve Bracks, you will always be a legend for achieving just this result in my book), Stockdale has served on various boards and has most recently been the chairman of that bastion of neoliberal thought, the Institute of Public Affairs. This seems to indicate a turn to the right.
http://www.ipa.org.au/people/bio.asp?peopleid=8
So, do you still hope Nicola Roxon rots in her catholic hell, Brenton?
🙂
Actually , TurningWorm, Adam corrected me that Nicola Roxon is NOT Catholic, so I do apologise for that! But , I think it has been reported in the media that Nicola hasnt had time to be able to get married! I wish her well when she does , but please give a lot of other people a chance to get hitched, no matter what the type of arrangement!
TurningWorm 166, I also wanted to add that many thousands of gay and lesbian people were mortified the day the ALP ( thus focus on Nicola Rixon) announced support for the Howard Government’s position on excluding same-sex couples from the Marriage Act. It was the resulting and increased homophobia and the fact that in Australian society’s mind ,that gay relationships were not at all worthy or to be respected. I think a majority of homosexual couples could not careless about the Marriage Act at all. There are far better legislative options that will be arrived at for citizens.( eg civil unions) I hope I have been able to express, how such an event affects the lives of so many. You may not be able to relate to this at all. So many people felt so badly betrayed by the Labor Party on this issue that many of them have never returned to vote for the Labor Party. I hope you respect my thoughts and writings here. I feel many people do not understand the sensitive nature of such issues and how such political actions can cause so much sadness and suffering.
HarryH (164) Who are you referring to?…”Rightoids” and “Kevin 07ers”??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Roxon
Alan Stockdale is to the “right” on economic issues, certainly, but is not a moral conservative. He’s more an economic radical than an economic conservative. I suspect he’d be very good at raising funds for the Liberal Party.
We can all get a bit confused when discussing the Liberal Party “right”. The Liberal party attracts people who can be very pro-business and pro-“free market”, and people who are from the religious right, and are anti-gay, pro law and order etc.
The Liberals struggle to accommodate both these groups and present policies that appeal to the broader public, just as Labor also struggles with reconciling its Catholic wings and its more libertarian left.
Even the Greens contain a fair sprinkling of devout Christians who want to protect God’s environment, while other members want gay marriage and less help for religious schools.
I guess I’m just saying that most of our political parties have a broad range of members, and won’t get elected if their membership is too narrow. So we have to be careful defining people as “right-wing” or “left-wing”. Stockdale and Kennett certainly did a lot of privatisation, but their government wasn’t a conservative Christian one.
Antonio,
Welcome aboard.
My suggestion for you is to find a blank piece of paper and draw a cross. Then label the axis(es) social conservative/liberal and the other one economic conservative/economic liberal.
Then place your favourite Liberals where they fit on this two dimensional scale(totally opinionated).
As a rule, those diametrically opposite get on because they undestand that each is coming from different perspectives. Those on the same plane disagree because they can’t understand how the other can disagree about things when they are so much alike.
Not perfect but helps you understand the human condition.
Antonio 171, you have scared the living daylights out of me with “even the Greens contain a fair sprinkling of devout Christians”. I think I need to contact the Socialist Alliance tomorrow as soon as possible. LOL.
Dunno about a ‘fair sprinkling’ but our local Greens candidate [lovely lady] is near to finishing her Dr. of Divinity.
Takes all sorts.
The Greens love everyone except GWB and the Liberals.
Not too sure about evangelical christians either – personally I find them scary and really,really ignorant.
But that’s OK, cos they think I represent Satan.
I think the middle-of the road ordinary variety of Christians are Ok though.
Prefer an atheist myself, but that’s a personal choice, not a party requirement.
Antonio 171, by their works shall ye know them. Stockdale and Kennett between them were responsible for consigning many Victorians to unemployment and depression (as another pollblodger has said, the hypocrisy of Kennett’s sponsorship of ‘Beyond Blue’ is mindblowing), and many of their more crazed policies (such as the ‘tendering out’ of all work in local government) have had far-reaching and deleterious effects. Stockdale may well, as you say, be ‘good at raising funds’ for the Liberal party. Does this make him a ‘good’ leader or person or president of the Liberal party? Only if raising funds is very, very important. In passing, it will only irritate pollbludgers if you embark on mind-improving passages beginning with ‘We’, as in ‘We can all get a bit confused’. Me, I’m not confused, and I’m not your we.
Another thing, Antonio, there are plenty of catholics who are also libertarians.
jen 175, your comments always make me smile!
fred 174, diversity is a positive thing!
The ‘business elite’ love Stockdale especially the overseas corporates who now own much of our sold public utilities and infrastructure and will most likely give because of what he acheived. Achieved is perhaps the incorrect word as he did nothing for the benefit of middle, poor and working classes. People may also give money because they have short memories.
Meantime talking of selling publically owned utilities, New South Wales LABOR is now going to do the same, Short term stupidity. I suppose it shows that these days their is little difference between the parties and they now do things to feather the nests of the corporate elite and do such things after elections and well before the next so that people forget.
Channel Deepening in Victoria is another case in point.
apres @ 176,
“by their works shall ye know them”, indeed.
Where does that put the man who gave us “the recession we had to have”, I wonder?
After all, it’s one thing to cause a recession accidentally, but PJK boasted about his!
jen @ 175,
What specifically about evangelical Christians makes them not “ordinary” Christians in your view? After all, the term “evangelical” really just means Bible-believing, which probably encompasses 90% of Protestants who ever lived, just for starters.
Oh for F’s sake-
are the Libs actually going to regurgitate Stockdale??
We might as well have Meg Lees running as leader of the Dems, or Bronwyn Bishop for PM.
Dyno-
it could be the talking in tongues, the cheque-book based proof of devotion, the blatant homophobia, the talking in tongues, the anti-contraception position, the intolerence of all other religions, the belief in creationism, the denial of scientific evidence that disproves the legends of the bible, the support for conservative bigotted political parties…
do I need to go on? Because I can.
Agree Jen but how many people outside of Victoria know who Alan Stockdale is? Noticed one thing about he is getting more hair on his eyebrows these days than his head, wonder he didn’t privatise them.
jen,
Most evangelical Christians don’t talk in tongues, or believe in the prosperity doctrine, etc, etc. Most of them believe in evolution and don’t see it as a big issue. Most of them practice contraception. Most of the evangelical Christians I know vote Labor (although perhaps that fits within your concept of “bigoted conservative parties”?).
I too could go on, but I suspect this argument isn’t what William runs the site for…
Dyno-
I am perhaps confusing Evangelical with Fundamentalist.
or you are not being honest about what goes on at the Hillside Churches?
happy to be told I am wrong though.
(Not sure how William puts up with us, but hats off to him… it’s fantastic to have these dialogues.)
Dyno, thankyou for informing us that evangelicals practice contraception. I think they need to demand refunds because everytime I go past the local churches there are huge vans fulls of kids! LOL.
Can anyone answer my question regarding the Oil and Supermarket inquiries and what they achieved?
Dyno-
out of interest, and with William’s indulgence: how do you define/describe an Evangelical Christian?
And, are you a Family First voter?
Anyway time to ponder tomorrows political stories, Good night from me and its good night from her, sorry him.
Any chance of a Murdoch by-election thread, William? All this political discussion is oh so interesting, but it’d be great to be able to get back to discussing the next election off the rank..
Rebecca,
See my reply here: http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/?p=791&cp=2#comment-120657
Giiven that this thread began with Rudd’s popularity -and the licence that provides for positive action in all policy areas- and has spiralled into a detailed analysis of Green issues, perhaps I can tie it together and say I hope Rudd MAKES the Greens irrelevant, by adopting good workable policies. As the only Mandarin-speaking western leader, I feel Rudd is uniquely poised to play a decisive role in global climate resurrection. If he can convince China to make significant emissions cuts, the US and other big emitters will be shamed into doing the same, and there will be hope for the planet. I predict Clever Kev will hand the top Australian job over to Julia Gillard some time before the 2013 election, then he’ll go on to lead the UN’s new Climate Serious bureau, and save the world from choking on its own vomit. (Six billion of us, and we all want to be rock stars…)
Strangely enough, I USED to be an evangelical Christian (even talked in tongues at the time)….big shift from there to atheism, but that’s another story.
This was, of course, quite some time ago.
Even then there was a recognisable distinction between evangelical Christians, who base their beliefs on Christ’s teachings and fundies, who seem to concentrate exclusively on the Old Testament and Revelations.
The evs study Christ and try to emulate him – a lot of the fundies don’t seem to read the Bible at all.
So the evs are into love for all people and the fundies are only the chosen few (which always includes themselves, even though Christ basically says you don’t know if you’re one of the chosen or not, and that many who call him ‘lord’ aren’t really Christians) are worth worrying about.
I read a fundie text once, about a vision of hell. People were burning in pits (individually), being charred to skeletons and then regenerating so that they could burn again (this agony continues, of course, for all eternity). Meanwhile Christ wandered around from pit to pit, pausing to say to the agonised inhabitant “I love you”.
Made me sick.
But the point is, there’s a big difference between those two types of Christian (and a big difference between them and your average conventional church goer).
“Evangelical” simply means Bible-believing and as I said earlier that term would cover the vast majority of Protestants (and plenty of other Christians besides).
Hillsong might be classified as “evangelical” (I’m not sure), but its style of worship and general attitudes on a number of issues would vary widely from many, if not most evangelicals.
I half agree with zoom at 195 – I agree there’s a big difference between fundamentalists and evangelicals.
I disagree with the last statement though – your “average conventional church goer” (in Protestant churches, anyway) would actually fit within most definitions of the word “evangelical”. But they would not be fundamentalists.
This is the way it works in Australia, I don’t know about the US.
Enough on religion I suspect! But jen, to answer your other question, I’ve never remotely considered voting Family First – have you?
Hi Dyno:
No.
I wonder did anyone every stopped to think about what he meant by that. We were moving from a government controlled financial system to one controlled by the market, as a result we where exposed to the reality of the mess we where in because of our closed economy.
It seems to me there are a lot on the right that have not grasped what happened and why it had to happen. I was at a meeting the other day were one gentleman was complaining about the election win by labor and the removal of tariffs over the last 20 years, it all seems quite quaint, a blast from the past.
Charles –
re Blasts from the Past:
whaty does it really say about the state of the liberal party if they are seriously considering bringing back Alan Stockdale, after the drubbing the Kennett government (finally) got from Victorians.
They really are scaping the bottom of the barrel.
They do better to try and woo back Malcolm Fraser.