Newspoll: 58-42

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.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

374 comments on “Newspoll: 58-42”

Comments Page 6 of 8
1 5 6 7 8
  1. Zoom , were amendments put forward for these pieces of legislation, so perhaps they could be passed in the future if the Government agreed to them? Obviously there are vast policy differences between the Victorian ALP and the Victorian Greens. Oh well, at the next election all parties as per usual will be judged by their performances by the electors in Victoria. I am not so shocked about policy positions being changed after an election campaign because we would be here for years with statistics concerning things promised by the Majors during election campaigns. I still think that it must be a big change to have other parties in the Upper house. How does the DLP guy vote?

  2. 247
    zoom –

    The Greens and Libs have voted the same in Spring Street 65% of the time because of the complete and utter incompetence of the Brumby government.

    Lets not forget that the Greens would have hardly any representation in the Legislative Council had Bracks not changed the electoral system in Victoria. The ALP made a bad move.

    Nice to see that Minchin now supports One conservative party in Australia. I agree i think it must be done at a National level first and they applied to all the States. Interesting times ahead, but nows the time when we’re down and out that we change things, we’ve got nothing to lose atm we can’t go any further back then where we are now.

    How does the DLP guy vote? – who cares lol!

  3. zoom, you know very well that saying the Vic Greens have voted with the Libs 65% of the time is totally misrepresenting the intent of those votes.

    The Libs and The Greens are voting against some Labor policy for entirely different reasons. This points to the undeniable fact that Labour are most definately occupying the “political middle ground” these days, with the Libs disagreeing with them from the Right and the Greens disagreeing with them from the Left.

    Greens supporters have every right to disagree with Labour policy if they don’t agree with it.

    In the transition from Far Right politics back to Centrist politics over the next 10-20 years Modern Australian Labour presently are espousing Conservative policies. It is the Greens place to challenge them and drag them to the Centre and the Libs job to drag them back to the Far Right.

    I have no doubt , over the next term or two that Labour will progress Left to a more centrist position, but while we are waiting, people who are sick to death of backward looking social conservatism and welfare to the rich etc will continue to harangue the ALP until they change policy.

    Surely for an Aus Labour Party there is no excuse for funding Exclusive Brethren schools, or giving welfare to people earning $240,000 a year(thats $4,500 a week).

  4. oh, and zoom, you still haven’t named any names of who in the ALP delivered Fielding to us. You intimated earlier you knew who made the decision. Is it so shameful that they can’t be named?

  5. Brenton forget the rotten DLP

    NO DLP will ever get elected again & only did so this time as a few silly ALP powerbrokers got too cute with preference deals. Those guys have been told never to do so again

    Bracks brought in laws guaranteeing minor party balance of power
    The other Partys in the upper House makes for better Government which Bracks correctly forcast.

    Neither Bracks or Brumby have even remotely complained about obstruction
    which tells you the Greens have been responsible despite cliams made here

  6. Yes Ron Bracks and Brumby have not whined about the Greens but other hacks have. The State Office under the pathetic leadership of Stephen Newhman whinges and uses Alp money to campaign against them. I was at meeting last year and Martin Ferguson criticised them heavily over their split ticket decision in the Victorian election of 2006, actually like most in the Party he misrepresented it and said the Greens backed the Liberals which is totally untrue. Dishonesty rules in the party because it cannot stand a party actually believing in something where the Labor Party once had Greens beliefs but now believes in corporate greed and spin to ensure it occurs.

  7. HarryH , Zoom cann’t tell what he does not know

    I can say it was the same senior powerbrokers who delivered a DLP seat in Vic’s Upper House.

    Fielding FF will not get re-elected next time , the ALP prefs will go to the Greens
    intead as they did in 2007 meaning either a Green or ALP Senator replacing FF

  8. Ron @ 241, my posts have not made any comment one way or another about the validity of the climate change debate. I take it that you agree with Greens criticism of Rudd’s policy of waiting for the Garnaut Report before making the big decisions on how to tackle global warming?

  9. HarryH

    one of the senior ALP powerbrokers who made the silly FF decision sits in the Senate and is embarassed everytime he looks accross the Senate Chamber and sees “his man” Fielding !!!!!!

    What the ALP cutely but foolishly tried to do was to prefernce FF before the Greens thinking it would guarantee an ALP senate seat.
    Instead it delivered a FF seat

    (which IF Labor had of preferenced the Greens instead as the ALP did in 2007 WOULD HAVE delivered a Greens Senate seat)

  10. Ron its the members of the retail and hospitality union who would have had a say, the mob who wanted Jacinta Collins.
    The ‘groupers’ who are making a comeback, these people have a right wing agenda consisting of anti abortion, anti homosexuality, right wing economics, a women’s position is in the home and not the boardroom, and pro marriage.
    The groupers are back and really their union should never have been allowed to be affliated with party again.

  11. 229 Ron – Not at all Ron. If you want the Greens to be a minority party forever and a day just let them keep going the way they are. How are their present policies and approach working for them? They have been around for a long time and are still a minor party. Having ideals is well and fine but ignoring the realities of government is a luxury the Greens have at the moment and will continue to have with their view on the realities of politics.
    Maybe they don’t have a desire to be a major political player? Hmm, that’s possible I suppose. If that’s the case they’re going along beautifully.

  12. So Gary the Greens need to have the same right wing agenda as Labor to actually be relevant.
    A party that sells out it consistency time after time and then through spin tells us all it is doing something for us all.
    Instead its big business who runs Victoria and runs Australia.
    Gary your comments no doubt suggest to me that you work for the Labor Party, you are an appatichik , wonder when you will get your seat? That is how it happens does it not?

  13. Marky marky – the kind of attitude you display in 263 is exactly what I’m criticising – the idea that everyone inside the ALP is driven purely by political gain. It’s the kind of attitude shown when the ALP does something worthwhile environmentally and it is creditted to the Greens – ignoring the fact that within the Labor Party there are a substantial number of people committed to and working for a better environment.

    Likewise, Glen’s comment about Upper House reform – yes, Labor knew at the time that the reforms would cost them seats and would certainly cost them control of the Upper House. I’m very proud of a Party which implemented the reforms anyway, when they could have walked away from them. I’m especially proud of those friends of mine in the Upper House who knowingly voted themselves out of a job.
    Of course, Glen being a conservative, the idea of a party implementing a principled policy even though it hurt them politically is one he can’t grasp.
    HarryH, whatever the intention the result is the same…and illustrates the problem we were talking about before, that if Labor is attacked from both sides its chances of holding government are lessened. The Greens, by using such tactics, could effectively mean the return of the Libs earlier than necessary. (Glen’s praise of the Greens in this regard should serve as a dire warning!) Several bloggers here have tried to point out that this approach is counter productive for the Greens – a bit of a pyrrhic victory if you succeed in switching voters to the Libs.
    Brenton asked me the details, I gave them. I’m quite happy to have others justify the Greens actions for them, that’s not within my scope of competence (or indeed interest).
    Yes, I know some of those involved in the FF fiasco and very naughty boys they were. However, they were well intentioned (good intentions being the cause of more harm in the world than anything else I can really think of) and I like them, so I’m not naming names…you should have figured out by now that I’m a very loyal person.

  14. Glen,

    If you are about. What is your take on the Liberal Leadership power play in Victoria?

    Is start of the beginning of a revival?
    Is it the end of the beginning of a revival?
    Is it the end of the start of a revival?
    Is it the beginning of the end of a revival?

    Liberals in Victoria are the joke!

  15. 261
    marky marky Says:
    January 26th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
    Ron its the members of the retail and hospitality union who would have had a say, the mob who wanted Jacinta Collins.

    Ron says
    rubbish. You just demonstrated how little you know of ALP powerbrokers and I don’t intend to add to blog #260

    Garry Bruce
    As a Labor person I’m delighted the greens exist with their prefs
    Your “advice” for the Greens as to how they could get bigger is politically flawed.

    You do not get it that there will never be a 3rd force
    If they moved policy wise towards the centre , they’re finished politically

    Fortunately the Greens understand this so they won’t comit political suicide like the Democrats. Thats good for the Greens & good for Labor

  16. zoom, i’m not particularly interested in the names, although i do await the (hopefully soon) demise of our current Minister for Communications.

    The fact that you are unwilling to “out” them through your “liking” for them or your “loyalty” to your colleagues is a good enough sign to me. The fact that they want to hide behind anonymity,through shame, points to such foolishness never happening again.

    Oh, and i had to giggle when you said the Greens “intention” about their decisions are irrelevant and its the result that counts, and then 2 sentences later you excused Fieldings ALP helpers because their “intentions” were good.

    Oh well…….shit happens.

    I can see your point that if Labor and the Greens work against the Conservatives then everything will be better. I agree.

    But at the moment , the Greens are a progressive party and Labour are acting like a conservative party. You can’t really expect the Greens to happy clap along behind Labour at the moment. Especially after Conservative Kev deliberately sabotaged a Labour/Green BoP in the Senate by helping turn the second ACT senate seat from probable Green to Lib.

    This was a very calculated move by KR. The last thing he wanted was a Labour/Green senate.

  17. Ron
    that assumes that if the Greens didn’t exist, the present Green voting bloc wouldn’t go to Labor. I think that’s a big assumption – that a left of centre party supporters would all vote Liberal if the left of centre party didn’t exist.
    If the Greens can’t even hope to be a third force, then WTF is the point of their existence? If they want to have real influence on environmental outcomes (which I am assuming is the point of their existence) then the bigger bloc of votes they influence the better.
    Of course, if they just want to be a protest party for disenchanted Labor voters, then they’re doing fine at present.
    However, I’d find my job a lot easier if disenchanted Labor voters stayed in the fold and helped that way.

  18. Zoom your job of handing out HTV ‘s won’t change

    Your belief the Greens could ever be a 3rd force is politically fancilful

    Unlike you the Greens are politically astute & have had ll continue to have influence both on policy & its direction.

    Your understanding of politics & the interaction of political voting blocs between greens and the varous blocs of Labor voters is a laugh

  19. Ron

    at the risk of seeming trite and a tad pedantic may i point you to the greens in west germany and their phenomenal rise and impact on the political agenda,so i wouldnt necessarily “write ‘ them off

    also i believe they are serving a useful purpose,a bit like FF and the nats viz representing narrow interest groups with little semblance to mainstream thinking
    but allowing a chance for ‘pressure groups’ to vent there spleen.

    but what are their policies on CC ๐Ÿ™‚

  20. i would like to ask a simple question to all the Kevin07ers out there:

    can anyone please justify the $250,000 cap to the lucrative Family Tax Benefit B?

    it is a ludicrously high threshold to set.

  21. HarryH, it’s a simple question with a simple answer if you knew anything about how Latham’s policies were treated by the media in the ’04 election.

    Ron, I shudder to think where one has to get to in the political game for becoming a sycophant to the Greens to seem like a good idea.

  22. yep gusface you’re right they’ve made a big mark in Germany

    yep you’re right they are serving a useful purpose

    No don’t agree they “representing narrow interest groups with little semblance to mainstream thinking” as reagards Climate & environmental issues.
    I think they’ve made them gradually mainstream

    but yep on non Climate & environmental issues you’re right they’re not mainstream.

    So mostly Gusface I agree with your blog

    But as a Labor person I love their preferences which they will ALWAYS generally give rather than us facing in their place FF who’ll usually pref the Libs

    which is why I’m baffled at some of the anti Green sentiments made by Labor people here especially given the history of the anti Labor DLP pref history 2 Libs

  23. Ron

    maybe its the fear that once the greens hold the BOP in the senate that “radical” legilstaion will be passed that although ‘green’ in origin will be regarded by the great unwashed as ‘labor’ policy

    (remember J-Ho was able to conjure all sorts of demons and blame em on the labor devils)

  24. Ron, a bit of respect please – when I say I’ve been responsible for running election campaigns, that’s exactly what I meant. Of course that means handing out lots of HTVs – even Brumby and Rudd do that – and I hope you’re not slurring those who do that as insignificant politically.
    Bit tired of saying I’m not anti green and like Gus I believe there is a much greater role for the Greens than you forecast…which makes me more pro Green than you are.
    I’m not sure how you can say on one hand that the Greens are politically astute and then on the other that they’ll never amount to much…but then you don’t seem to be into reasoned argument either.
    I’ve illustrated my concerns about the Greens with real examples. I’d be interested in you attempting the same.
    BTW I don’t think climate change were made central issues due to the Greens’ efforts (for someone who’s playing ‘I’m a bigger Labor insider than you are” that’s remarkably ignorant) – as Jen said, the Greens couldn’t really get the message across until it was picked up by the mainstream (which gets back to how concerned I’d be as a Green if, in an election which dealt so much with environmental issues, my party only managed a less than 1% gain on primaries).

  25. HarryH

    The $250,000 cap to the lucrative Family Tax Benefit B APPEARS disgracefully high.

    However there are NUMEROUS like welfare programs like Benefit B for the upper class & middle class that are NON MEANS TESTED (created by Howard)

    Kev07 may be going to put a line in the sand for ALL of these at 250,000
    Then subsequently gradually reduce the 250,000 threshold.

    Its a complex task to unravel Howard’s vote buying welfare schemes

  26. Ron, i see the “logic” in the slowly slowly approach BUT only if you swallow the propaganda that welfare to the wealthy is popular with the masses. it is NOT. It is just standard issue Liberal Party thinking. It is not one of the things that sustained Howardism. Things like inate racism and dog whistling and fear is what sustained Howardism .

    Without 9/11 Howardism would have ended long ago. Significant parts of the population were craving security and Howard cynically exploited that. When the fear subsided with the passing years so did the political usefulness of fear as a Howardism tactic.

    Welfare to the wealthy should be scrapped immediately by ANY Labour government. It would be popular and should be basic Labour policy.

    Setting the limit at an obscene $250,000 catches a mere 4,000 seriously wealthy familys, saving $40Mil.

    Setting the limit at $100,000 catches 60,000 families. Imagine the help this would be to the “inflation beast”.

    So now i hear all the Kevin07ers saying “but $100,000 a year aint much these days”and we aint into that class warfare stuff these days…..well ok, how about we make it $150,000. Surely that is more than enough to get by on without the need for welfare.


  27. gusface@275

    if the Greens get the BoP maybe the 2 majors will have to cut the charade of combat and vote together on most of their likeminded policies to slay the horrible Green monster.

    Remember ALL 3 parties will hold the BoP.

    Scary stuff for the Big 2.

  28. Ron @ 277 – You may be right.

    Plus, just because they are earning $250,000+ doesn’t necessarily mean they won’t miss the money. Many of the moderately rich sail much closer to the financial wind than those on average incomes. So do quite a few of the more seriously rich for that matter.

  29. Gusface ,

    Those blogers have seriously under estimated Kev 07. Labor will definitively trade with the Greens plus Mr X at the margin.

    But for the benefit of Zoom & others , Kev 07 is the most conservative Leader the ALP has EVER had. The proof ?…listen to his effect on Julia

    So no radical Greens or Mr X or FF legislation will get passed

    For the sake of illustration only , I’ll use ‘tags’ & discuss shallowly

    Globilisation has forced Labor to accept a market economy & fiscal responsibility
    if it wanted to govern.
    Labor has moved to the spectrum of centre left to centre right (depending on which policy was decided on)

    Labor gained new voters (the left libs or wet libs & their kids but lost the Labor left …socialist left who’ve gone to the Greens.

    Zoom naively thinks if there were no Greens , Labor would get them back without losing the middle ground or changing policy towards the left
    In fact if there were no Greens , splinter ‘left’ partys would spring up plus FF and the prefs WOULD BE “uncontrolled’ to Labors loss

  30. Oh and to those with a conscience

    Labor spent 23 years , yes 23 years in opposition listening to party officials who believed conscience & labor principles could never be corrupted.

    I’ll take Government anytime …accept the compromises ..because the net will be a gain or the people compared to having a Howard

  31. The Greens definitely need to learn from the Dems mistakes, and the DLPs too.

    Meg took Dems too far to the right, then Tash took them to the left to correct. Alienated supporters in both halves of the Dems.

    Why are the ALP so desparate for “credit” (if Zoom is to be believed). Aren’t they grown men and women, who can do things without constant approval-seeking?

    The ALP wsa founded in the early 1890s but took till 1912 to have a fleeting minority government, which was sabotaged by a man who believed what zoom is saying – Australia is fundamentally conservative. And who then destroyed the party to save himself. This is the ALP thinking on this blog apparently, do what you need to do to appease “Conservative” Australia without looking at what a menace Conservative Australia actually is (and how unAustralian it is too!) – anti-abortion, women in the home, anti-homosexual and so on.

    Supposedly the Greens should have dumped their opposition to this to get a few ALP Catholics off their back. As if Conroy and friends would have then voted for Kyoto in return. Look at Mick Costa in NSW, Conroy, the Groupers – none of them believe in climate change – they are not going to change these views to humour the Greens and they would rather deal with the DLP than the Greens.

  32. Adam- you’re back.
    I thought you would never talk to us again: (just got in trouble from resident Labor voter that I would prefer to blog than…)
    I would like an explanation for the seeming projection that the Greens are attacking Labor and undermining the left-leaning base. So Not True.
    Why are we being attacked when the threat from the neo-Cons is still so real : A Repug in office in the US, and (snigger) the threat of Brendan Nelson as PM?

  33. Jen I will put my views like this.

    Now I know about old growth and the need for nesting holes and all that, so I’m not going to say you don’t need old growth forest. And I used to bush walk and I love the creaks, but have observed there is very little unburnt forest in Victoria. I have lived in Hobart and have watch the fires traverse Mount Wellington. Thats not to say there are not some wonderful old stands in Tasmania. There is.

    I now live on a farm and have personally planted thousands of trees, and have noted that if you deep rip, and water them in, they grow. I suspect forest do the same ( with a lot less work).

    Oil; once used is gone; it doesn’t grow on trees. Uranium once used is a danger to all living things for hundreds of thousands of years.

    I was in a shop once; a person hit the roof because the product was presented in a paper bag instead of a plastic one. Paper is bio degradable and comes from a renewable resource. Plastic bags are a blot on our environment.

    I suppose to be fair I should ask, what is the position of the green party?

  34. I should add – you can see when they ALP has been successful with environmental issues – Wran, RIchardson, Hawke and so on – it is because they listened to the polls – ordinary people and activists – not to the party heirarchy, which is filled with those loathsome Catholic splittists that have been part of the party since it was founded.

    Too much of the mythical light on the hill rubbish has been about Irish Catholic garbage of chips on shoulders etc, not enough about how the ALP evolved into a modern social democratic party that responded to the middle class eg Whitlam, Wran and so on.

    When the middle class leaned left, they were wanting middle class comforts – whales saved, nukes banned, pollution removed, NOT threatening teenage girls because they got knocked up, or carrying on about giving condoms out in Kenya.

  35. Some of the discussion on Labor and Green policies seems a bit unreal. Its actually a lot more efficient economically and otherwise to pay subsidies across the board and use the main tax rates to collect the necessary revenue. The whole tax system is biased in giving deductions which have a much higher benefit for higher income levels. Eg its much better to allow everyone $1000 for health expenses rather than allow an amount of up to $2000 as a tax deduction. Same with super and many other things. This tends to be the way progressive European and other govts work. Having caps on “welfare” payments sounds like its benefiting poorer people but it leads to a range of problems with higher income people thinking they are subsidising welfare and so demanding tax cuts. The Whitlam govt abolition of tertiary fees was an example – at one level it was middle class welfare but also benefited many working class people. Now with all the schemes for HECS and fees we have a system which allows high income earners to buy their way in. Its not obvious that having complex caps instead of a more transparent system of tax is fairer.

    Equally with incomes and tax generally. We have currently bought the free market ideology thoroughly. If we had a maximum level of income of a few times the average (and with very high tax rates after that) we would have a much more egalitarian society and fewer problems with wasteful consumption and environmental destruction. Those who couldn’t cope on an income of say $300,000 a year would be allowed free financial counseling.

  36. Feel better with all that off your chest TEV? I’m pretty sure it’s not Labor policy to ban abortions or ban women from working or ban condoms. Maybe you have had your head in the American election for too long.

  37. Ron

    I don’t know whether Kev will be the most conservative ALP leader, his gift to Bush may be an indication of his thinking.

    He has a true battlers background and identifies with many of their stuggles in a harsh world. One thing he is though is ruthless.

  38. Worm, you need to realise it doesn’t matter what ALP policy is, we aren’t talking about ALP policy. We are talking about how some contributers here, yourself included, believe the Greens should give their opposition to these policies up, and mollycoddle the likes of Conroy, in order to get a few iconic environmental policies through – when you know full well that these ALP hacks have NO intention of changing their opposition to the Greens or their policies.

    Electoral suicide it would be.

    Marn Fergssn is one of these. Hatred of the Greens is in his bones – it wouldn’t matter what the Greens did. I don’t know why the ALP contributers here are so keen not to look at the behaviour of their own people.

    There is a valid discussion of good electoral tactics for the Greens – but this ain’t it.

  39. A lot of the ALP guff on this board is premised on the “united front” that the Greens should recognise the Libs as the enemy, but Lenin had the right idea.

    The Greens medium term objective should be to destroy the ALP – clear the debris out of the way so they can take on the Libs in a real fight.

  40. Arbie Jay , I’m aware of his internal political & policy debates and he is very conservative….economically like Hawke but more gradualist on social issues but without any labor left instead micro managing equity outcomes.

    The Elect Vessel ,
    agree Zoom & co are too sensitive to labor being criticised but their obvious antipathy to the Greens shows they’re novices

    as to your belief Labor powerbrokers would prefer to deal with the DLP than the Greens , I can definitively assure you this is not the case. I do know TEV.

    The ALP preference meeting decided by majority to preference the DLP over the Greens in the 2003 Vic Upper House to try & pinch the majority.
    It was a longshot. Political realism said then the majority could not be achieved.

    It was a poor political nubers decision apart from an appaling moral one
    It has since been decided that irrepective the DLP will not be preferenced before the Greens in future

  41. TEV, I would love for you to find a post of mine which says the Greens should give up their policies to make a deal with the Labor party.

    My posts have been talking about the inability of the Greens to capture the public vote. I really don’t know what Conroy or Ferguson have to do with that other than you wanting to throw their names around because you think it will muddy the waters in some way.

    Perhaps if the Greens had more of the spirit of Lenin in them and took on the Labor party head on then they would get greater respect from some. The Greens tactics seem to be to remain in a bubble of moral rectitude while they criticise others for making compromises in policy in order to beat the Liberals at the election.

  42. Worm you just do not get it

    The Greens are NOT to quote you “wanting capture the public vote”

    the Greens are trying to get the support of voters who support their policys
    AND THEY HAVE SUCEEDED !!!!! winning 7% of the electorate.

    With partial BOP and being an important prefs ally to the ALP , they can lever public policy and do so.

    You have misunderstood the political game…..its called nubers & influence

    Your expectation they should try to be a major party defies the realities and sounds like sour grapes against a successful political ally of Labor

  43. This will NEVER Happen in WA ๐Ÿ™‚

    [LIBERAL Senator Nick Minchin said internal party factions were “evil in the wrong hands” and repeated calls for a united conservative party to effectively compete with their “great political enemy”.

    THE Liberal and National parties must merge to remain a competitive adversary to the ALP’s federal and state dominance, according to the South Australian-based senator .

    Addressing the Young Liberal Movement National Convention in Perth today, Senator Minchin said the coalition’s “current parlous state” was the time for change.

    “We can no longer afford the luxury of two separate organisations on the right-hand side of Australian politics,” he said.

    “The competition from Labor is so powerful and so intense that we must unite in order to compete with our great political enemy.”

    He said November’s election defeat must act as “an almighty wake-up call to Liberals and Nationals across Australia.”],21598,23114724-5005361,00.html

  44. TWorm, the election is now over. The Libs have been dethroned. All hail Kev. I will be eternally grateful that he helped to defeat Howardism when he did. 4 more years could have been ghastly.

    But now Labour are running the ship. No more excuses that Kev is tailoring his policies to keep the Conservative dragon at bay. The Conservatives are a rabble. In power nowhere.

    Without being stupid about it, he should from here on in be acting like the leader of a centrist, progressive/mildly conservative Australian Labour Party.
    Now, it is only early, but many peoples fear is that Kev is not just acting Conservative.

    Ron summed up nicely earlier that globalisation forced Labour to the Right. This is correct. That is where the Greens fit in. To fill the void left. If Labour and the Greens continue to pref each other exclusively, they will remain in power for the foreseeable future.

    It is worrying though when Labour deliberately obstruct chances at Labour/Green senates. I suspect this trick won’t be successful again.

    Kev wanted a do-nothing 1st term and he got one. From 2010 there will be a turning back of Conservatism in Oz.

  45. Ron, I know the Greens don’t want to win the popular vote. I know that the lower house candidates are just a vote farming/money making exercise and that most Greens candidates would actually be embarrassed to say that they represent the people who’s electorates they stand in.

    Don’t you think it’s a fair point of criticism that they don’t consider global warming to be so important that they would want to win the popular vote? That the Greens don’t think the solutions some governments are trying such as wind farms are worth getting vocal in support of lest it upset one of their core demographics of NIMBY aestheticists? It certainly seems to rub a lot of Greens the wrong way whenever I raise these issues with them.

  46. HarryH , could not agree more with your views.

    this term , fight inflation to prevent interest rates going thru the roof and otherwise be cautious to cement a longterm Labor with Greens support

    both workchoices & CC legislation will be moderate laws

    IF Kev 07 tried to unravel all “Howardism” in one term , the number of disaffected groups & the calamity the Media would make of it would mean a loss in 2010

    HarryH, Rudd’s “centrist, progressive/mildly conservative Australian Labour Party”
    over 3 to 4 terms will demolish “Howardism” completely

  47. Also Ron just for completeness sake, which post did you get your quote from me “wanting capture the public vote” from?

Comments Page 6 of 8
1 5 6 7 8

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *