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.
Is Fraser still a Liberal?
No – he appears to have developed a heart.
Share that has fallen more than 50% Mariner Financial. Founded by Bill Ireland in 2003, after he was moved on from Challenger Financial Group. Four directors, including former Victorian treasurer Alan Stockdale.
Fraser is still a Liberal party member. jen you are unjust, the party has problems but not all members are right wing thugs.
Good ol Conservative Kev has taken his “razor gang” to middle class welfare……NOT.
Kev has deigned that $250,000 a year is a reasonable enough amount of coin that you no longer need Family Tax Benefit B….so no welfare for you.
I bet the Fams earning $220,000 a year are breathing a huge sigh of relief that they are still (in Kev and Therese’ view)in need of welfare and can continue to put food on the table.
Great start to a “new” era Kev.
With this guy leading the ALP, the Greens will never go out of business. Labour will continue to attract moderate conservatives to them and continue to bleed the working class ,compassionate and progressive vote to the Greens.
If the working class, compassionate and progressive vote is 7% we’re in more trouble than I thought!
Jen , Stockdale has massive business networks which could provide much needed donations to the Libs. If you,ve met Stockdale , you’ve met a cold fish
oh Charles,
I’m sure there are some lovely people in the liberal party. There’s just a lot of pricks as well.
Ron, thankfully I have never met Stockdale, bvut I lived`under The Kennett regime and was as appllaed`as I hvve been with Howard’s crew.
Economic “rationalism” at any cost, regardless of the impact on human beings. They were a disgrace.
Jesus, this site really has degenerated into a sickening lefty love-fest, hasn’t it.
zoom, large slabs of the working class, compassionate and progressive were hell bent on ending Howardism last election.
next election, Conservative Kev could be their bogeyman. I hope not, but with indications like the $250,000 cut-off for welfare, Conroys inane attempt at censorship of the net, continued funding of wealthy private schools(including The Brethren’s), medicare safety net for the wealthy sucking up the funds,general blind loyalty to big business ethos etc etc etc , i would say The Greens will be more than fringe dwellers in the next 10 years.
Don’t get me wrong, Conservative Kev is not all bad in this progressives eyes. He WILL be vastly more palatable than JWH. I’m just saying there will be ample territory for the Greens to inhabit after a term or 2 of Kevin07 and Kevin11.
Tipping that 7% will be 10% and solid and will be loud.
The inevitable slight tilt to the Left(for numerous reasons) in the Western world is in its infancy.
AC –
feel free to post as much love as you like for the conservatives. It’s always fun reading the indefensible.
The problem with liberal membership is i don’t think it actually means anything. There were/are elected members of parliament that have no say in policy let alone what happens down in the trenches. Can someone tell me what a Liberal branch does other than leafletting and manning polling booths?
Alan Stockdale, and his ilk, are of huge importance to the Libs due to their contacts and money-raising abilities. No longer can they be reliant on the country’s taxes to spread their gospel. The business money they raised paled in significance next to the 100s of millions of public money spent on government advertising. I’m tipping the Libs will be working hard to re-establish those ties.
Meanwhile don’t expect our new fed gov to reel in tax-funded advertising for the incumbent – just have a look at the labour state governments. Only the elecorate can stop this rampant abuse.
If Labor went further to the left under “Conservative Kev” the Greens would have someone else to moan about (as would the “Labor Left”) after next election, a PM coming from the conservative side of politics. Take your pick. I know which one I prefer.
Gary,
I have a problem with the “this guy isn’t as bad as the last one, so leave him alone” political position.
I would like to see a real change in policy direction, particularly in relation to environmental and social issues. So I and others like me will continue to push for that.
otherwise it won’t happen.
Jen , you are 100% right but it will take years to overcome what Howard left behind
Politically” ALP needs to detroy the Libs “better economic managers” myth
Economically: Inflation is back as Howard stopped fighting it from 2005
Equity: middle AND upper class no means tested welfare takes time to unravel
I don’t think that’s what Gary’s saying, Jen.
If both sides of politics – Greens and Liberals – spend their whole time attacking the Labor Government, then it makes it easier for the Libs to stage a comeback, which makes it even harder for the Greens to achieve what they want to.
I’m repeating myself, but the best position for the Greens to take is that of the reasonable critic – e.g. “We’re pleased that the Rudd Govt has taken X action on issue Y, but it would be good if they took it further and did Z”.
(It’s the kind of approach the Nats take to the Libs – “We disagree with what you’re doing, but if you go ahead and do it, you need to…”)
…so a kind of supportive friend who isn’t afraid to tell you when you’re being a complete prat but balances it by the occasional sincere compliment. At the moment, the Greens are more like the sulky teenager who can’t admit anything mum and dad do is cool.
After all, why should either of the majors listen to the Greens if – even when they do so – they never get acknowledgement for it? (Or the acknowledgement consists of the nyah nyah, told you so, wouldn’t have done it if we hadn’t nagged, type).
Political pressure does not have to consist of negativity.
Zoom , your criticism of the greens is naive.
They are not part of Labor. Its an independent party doing ITS agenda
with Bob Brown well aware of ‘balance’
between a average devil and a rotten devil
zoom,
I can’t speak for the entire membership of the Greens , but if you have read my previous postings oyu would see that I have been fulsome in my praise of Kevin, particularly with his acknowledgement of the need for an apology to indigenous australians, his ratification of Kyoto, hios decsion to disband the “Pacific Soluion”, amnd I just Love Julia. At the same time I am in complete isagreement with him over the Tamar Pulp Mill, the dredging of POrt Phillip Bay , the coninued logging of old growth forests for woodchipping, the mining of uranium for export etc etc .
So, I feel you are being a tad unfair.
And I still can’t Type.
215 zoom – well put. I agree 100%
zoom amd Gary-
I get the feeling you fellas want Bob to join Labor.
Where would PBs be if that happened??
You are just not thinking this through.
I have seen the destructive “agee with everything we believe in or we’ll bring you down” approach from the left caused Labor in the past. Believe me, they were prepared to see the election of a conservative government and see their own side be defeated to get their own way. To me this is totally self defeating. The approach zoom suggests is the way to go.
No, I don’t want Bob to join Labor, and I don’t want the Greens to disappear.
I have made it clear that I’m totally supportive of the Greens right to disagree with the ALP.
However, too often when campaigning for Labor I have got the impression that the Greens regarded the ALP as their real enemy, rather than the Libs (a bizarre example of that was a debate I attended during the election campaign. The Lib candidate didn’t even deign to attend. The Labor candidate focussed on a critique of Liberal policies, whilst the Greens spent most of the debate attacking Labor).
As a political operative, I’m quite sympathetic. After all, the Greens are more likely to lose primary votes to Labor than they are to Liberal. For the Greens, this is deathly important, as their main source of funding appears to be the payment the AEC makes on the basis of primary votes.
So, if the Greens are simply a political party like any other, which puts political survival above all odds, then a focus on attacking Labor makes perfect sense.
However, if the Greens are not a political party like any other, and genuinely put the good of the environment against mere political survival, then they need to recognise who the real enemy is and focus their efforts accordingly.
Otherwise we end up with the Victorian situation, with the Greens using their numbers in the Upper House to scuttle legislation they originally campaigned for, in order to curry favour with the Libs.
I get back to the reasonable adult position – as I say to the kids, for every criticism they make of each other, I want to hear one compliment as well.
And…blame an early morning Australia Day start…what are PBs?
Zoom you are too sensitive to the Greens criticism.
The Greens policys on environment are consistently pro environment whereas Labor’s Pulp Mill & pro logging old growth forrests fo chips is ANTI environment
but for Labor its politically sound
I luv the Greens and usually their environmental criticism’s “embarass most Labor voters because they are true !
Whereas alot of the Greens economic criticisms should be ignored as mainstream Australia does not agree with them for sound economic reasons
Zoom,
not sure which candidate you were listening to but most of us (Bob included), made it clear that we were supporting the election of Rudd, and that getting rid of the Howard government was the focus of much of our campaigning.
I am not going to apologise for being critical of Labor policy. That does not mean that I, and others, do not acknowledge the vast improvement Labor is over the liberals. Nor does it mean that we should back down on pressuring them to change the decisions we disagree with.
After all, if I agreed with them I wouldn’t be in the Greens, I’d be in the Labor party. And I’m not.
PB’s are us- pollbludgers.
I want to make it clear that I too believe there is a definite place in the political landscape for the Greens and admire their ultruism to do with all things green. I share many of their concerns and ideals. However, I also see the need to be politically realistic and believe to achieve the desired ideals, you need to bring the electorate along with you otherwise your “stay at the crease” will be a short one, in which case your ideals and aspirations will never be reached.
The one big difference between Labor and the Greens when it comes to environmental policy is that Labor recognises this reality and the Greens don’t. This will always cause trouble. The fact is Labor can form government and the Greens can’t and while the Greens take the approach of “stuff the political consequences” they never will IMHO.
Rightly or wrongly that is the reality, one we all have to live with and work with.
Criticism of Government policy is a good thing, Jen. Keep it up and you may just capture that large slab of 3% of the vote over the next decade that HarryH was talking about.
I would have thought that the impending doom of global warming would have meant that the Greens were willing to make compromises on other policies to put themselves in the main game and give themselves a chance to fix global warming. Apparently the death of the planet is not as important as a clear conscience.
P.S. Apropos of nothing I just wrote above, it’s still a thrill to type Government Policy and mean Labor Policy 😀
Gary Bruce that was clever political advice !!!!
Get the Greens to be a copy of the ALP & they’ll become extinct
Then all “Family First” have to do is appear to be the real “green” party and
get the green votes
AND of course Family First preferences the Libs
thats the sort of political advice that led the Democrats into the grave
TW-
not sure what you mean re: death of a planet less important than a clear conscience????
I think the death of the planet is obviously of utmost imporatnce, and having a ‘clear conscience ‘is no way mutually exclusive from wanting to see improvements in government approaches to the environment.
Not sure what you are getting at….
Jen what he’s saying is the Greens forget their consciences (policys) on all non green issues & agree to all Labors policys ….then Labor will quid quo and agree to the Greens CC policys which will save the Planet
Political nonsense or jealous of the Greens or both
Also Worm,
are you suggesting that we shouldn’t criticise government policy (Yes, YAY…LABOR gov’t policy) when it is poor policy because of the possibility of only a small increase in the vote? It’s not why we are doing it. It’s because we want to see a change in what is done.
If all we wanted was a higher vote then we would become labor or liberals.
Basically this is becoming ridiculous. A number of you are suggesting that in order to be a good political party the Greens should not criticise labour policy.
What a lot of crap.
Jen , correct
If you are Liberal ‘Glen” , would they be criticising the Libs for criticising labor
but if you are Greens Jen , would they be criticising Greens for criticising labor
Yes , if they are political novices or anti Green
but you said it more concisely ….crap
And in a supreme irony,
I /we cop more flack from Labor people on this site than all the libs put together.
Jen, I am just making criticism of what I see are the deficiencies in Greens policies and campaigning.
The Greens are good at wanting to see change and pouring scorn and derision on any party which does not meet their timetable for change. Yet as a political party they seem incapable of being able to garner enough votes to be the ones who make the changes.
The Greens tell us all about the urgency of action on global warming then high five themselves over a 1% increase in their vote. It’s kind of amusing to watch as an observer of the Greens.
For a party who’s existence revolves around criticising others, they seem very sensitive to criticism of themselves
On a non-partisan note:
just saw a group of true blue’s walking aroung in t-shirts with the oz flag and the slogan
“if you don’t like it then F#ck Off” emblazoned on them.
Makes you proud, don’t it?
Worm my friend,
I think you are resentful of our very existence.
Which is tough, because we are not going to go away anytime soon.
Jen, please stop misrepresenting my position.
I said that you were allowed to criticise Labor policy – but I also said that this should be balanced criticism, giving credit where credit’s due.
I don’t see why the second bit is so hard.
To be really provocative, Family First actually does this – it is prepared to praise either of the majors when they come out with policies that FF supports and criticise when they think either of them have got it wrong.
As I said before, that’s a reasonable position.
To use my sulking teenager analogy, some teenagers seem to think that acknowledging something their parents have said or done as cool undermines their whole rejection of their parents values thing – rather than realising that it’s a sign of maturity.
And, like Gary and Turning Worm, I think what I’m trying to do is to point out the weaknesses in the Greens position which they will need to recognise and overcome in order to remain a viable political force.
I don’t think the ALP is perfect, never have, and see it as important that ALP members continually criticise the performance of their party. (As our branch members said to each other years ago, when a member announced he was resigning because he was disillusioned with the party, “We thought that being disillusioned with the ALP was why anyone joined in the first place.”)
The preparedness of party members to criticise its party and its representatives is one of the reasons for the ALP’s longevity.
TW there will be never any more than 2 mainstream partys so to suggest they should aspire to the impossible is fanciful.
As a Labor person I respect the Greens right to have different policys & be able to criticise Labor. Others here wanted to deny the Greens these rights which is nonsense.
You down play the urgency of CC in your blog which proves you have not read the UN panel of 400 odd world wide scientists CC conclusions nor understood the geo political & commercial forces at work on the issue
zoom-
I’ll try again.
I think I do exactly as you are (repeatedly) asking. I give credit when Labor does something I agree with- read my previous posts pre and post election – and I also continue to criticise what I disagree with.
This is getting terribly repetitive.
ZOOM
To be really provocative, Family First actually does this – it is prepared to praise either of the majors when they come out with policies that FF supports and criticise when they think either of them have got it wrong.
Ron says
No you are not provocative in praising Family First (who preferenced the Libs)
You are a naive novice.
The Democrats would never have preferenced Howard in all 150 seats & didn’t
The Greens would never have preferenced Howard in all 150 seats & didn’t
Family First The Democrats DID preference Howard in all 150 seats ,
demonstrating how absurd your FF praise is (unless you’re a closet FF of course)
Hi zoom, Gary and Turning Worm, I am not from Victoria, so I and probably a lot of other people from interstate would like to know what are the issues and the particular pieces of legislation that the Victorian Government is so furious with the Victorian Greens about rejecting? Is it also about now having different parties in the upper house there? I know there is also a DLP elected as well. Here in South Australia we have ALP, LP, FF, AG, AD and 2 NO Pokies as well. The Rann Government has to deal with all of these parties and each piece of legislation ends up with various combinations of voting. But you never hear a great deal of fuss about upper house voting at all here. No SA Government has had control of the upper house for years and years. But Government continues apace, on and on. I have seen local statistics and the Labor Party and the Liberal Party vote the most together in the upper house here in South Australia. They were recent parliamentary stats. Sometimes Family First and the Greens vote together as well, depending on the legislation. Surely, the Greens do not vote with the Victorian Liberal party all of the time? Green MPs would be voted in by their members ansd supporters to look at each piece of legislation and therefore vote accordingly to party policy or to the issue in hand. Also , the 3 Victorian Green MPs must have been very new to the parliamentary process when elected , not that is any excuse at how they vote, but I am sure it was a shock to be in the real world of the Parliament and probably a shock for the majors to have them there. I would like to hear some facts in regard to this issue, not just , The Greens vote with the Liberals!
And there we have it. The pulp mill was based on regrowth and plantation forest yet support for the pulp mill becomes “pro logging old growth forrests fo chips is ANTI environment”.
I’d be more impressed with the greens if they attacked the use of paper instead wanting to stop sound projects so we have to buy paper in from overseas.
???How does acknowledging that a party (however repugnant) is politically savvy mean that I’m a closet supporter? I think I made it very clear earlier on how opposed to them I am.
It’s not praise to recognise tactics. It would be hard to find someone more opposed to the Liberal party than I am, but I recognise that Howard’s use of wedge politics and distractions were electorally successful. Doesn’t mean I think they were good tactics or I would adopt them myself or I would vote Liberal.
It’s important to recognise what others in politics do successfully in order to improve yourself – I know more about my local opponent, for example, than most of their supporters, and as a result have more contempt for them. Knowledge of how this person operates, what their strengths and weaknesses are and what motivates them, is not admiration and does not mean I’ll vote for them at the next election.
As for being a political novice – I’ve been responsible for at least 10 election campaigns (at each level of government) at a local level over the last ten years, each of which resulted in an above average swing to Labor. I couldn’t have done that if I didn’t have a good idea of what works and what doesn’t. That said, if the Greens don’t want to take on board the message I’m trying to get across – and, as I said previously, it is given in their best interests – it is really no skin off my nose.
After all, most of my members who defected to the Greens have returned to the fold now, so it’s not like they’re a threat to me.
If they took my advice, however, they might be.
Brenton, the Victorian Greens have voted with the Liberals 65% of the time. This includes voting with the Liberals to scuttle legislation which would have necessitated a State plebescite before a nuclear power station could be built in the State, a policy position the Greens had supported during the election campaign.
Jen Says:
January 26th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
“if you don’t like it then F#ck Off” emblazoned on them.
Makes you proud, don’t it?
And I am sure the designers total lack of imagination can be attributed to some Sydney shock jock. What upsets me is their use of the Australian flag when displaying such crap.
charles.
read The pulp mill. full stop. And the logging of old growth forests for woodchipping.
2 separate , but equally appalling labor-supported acts of environmental vandalsim in Tasmania.
And, by the way, The Greens do have policies that encourage both recycling and reduction in paper usage.
But thanks for the tip.
harles,
am in total agreement with youi re: the misuse of the flag.
It has become an embarrassment rather than something to be proud of.
Hopefully with Howard’s End (take note Zoom) Thanks To Kevin Rudd, the association with nationalism, jingoism, parochialism and out and out racism will dissapate.