Roy Morgan, which normally goes easy on “beauty contest” questions, has today entered the fray with a phone poll of 527 respondents. It gives Brendan Nelson the same 9 per cent preferred prime minister rating he suffered from Newspoll, with Kevin Rudd on 77 per cent compared with Newspoll’s 70 per cent. That’s not the worst of it though: on the question of preferred Liberal leader, Nelson can only manage equal fourth place behind Malcolm Turnbull (24 per cent), Peter Costello (18 per cent) and Joe Hockey (13 per cent). Nelson and Alexander Downer are both on 9 per cent. Kevin Rudd is favoured as Labor leader by 66 per cent over 15 per cent for Julia Gillard; in the absence of Rudd, 50 per cent would favour Gillard over 8 per cent for Wayne Swan.
Interesting, in the preferred PM results, Morgan says “14% can’t say or someone else”…
Does that mean that most conservative voters would prefer Rudd to anyone else??
I love the consistency in these poll figures. 9%. What a champion.
Single digit popularity has it benefits …. I cant think of any!
Loved this comment on the ABC site.
[Aaaaah, you wonderful whinging Liberals……remember back in 1996 when Mr howard said he would restore standards of decency to the Australian Parliament……another non-care promise, obviously, cos’ it never happened……}
[gooodonya, Libs, taking self-serving one-eyed hypocrisy to new galactic heights…]
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/22/2169665.htm
After today’s effort in parliament and Nelson’s obvious lack of control over the rabble behind him this figure could reduce even further, unless he has a very large family which already accounts for that 9% approval rating.
This is all getting a bit too predictable. When is Nelson going to sink to zero and hand over the poison chalice of Liberal Party leadership to Turnbull? Todays performance by the Libs must be starting to turn the scenario towards inevitable and shorten the time frame.
Clearly, the Libs chose the wrong leader. They should have gone for Turnbull. But the extreme, religious fundamentalist, Right couldn’t stomach the “liberalism” of Turnbull, so they went with the least popular, possibly most inept leader, who will prevent them from coming anywhere near the government benches in the future.
One word sums it up: DYSFUNCTIONAL.
This is the greatest problem that the Libs now face. The Right-wing extremists have control over the party and want to have a socially-conservative leader, but Australians don’t want a socially conservative leader. They had enough of that from Howard. So how do the libs reconcile staying true to their beliefs with a country and society that has moved on… For the next few years, the biggest concern for the Libs will be creating a sense of relevancy. Until then, they will remain dysfunctional.
The Liberal party strategists must come from some comedy show. Pretty smart to make themselves appear like a spoilt child tossing a tantrum – they may have had some fun but do they ever think what view the public will form of them? While Rudd is out doing serious things there they are spitting the dummy in parliament.
Do they think the public will see them in a serious light or more like stand up comedians trying to make fun of government? Good for a laugh but wouldnt choose them to run the country. This is really immature and it seems we will have to wait for their pimples to go away before they will become a viable alternative government.
Rudd must be laughing, these guys have lost focus entirely.
I’d love to see Gillard as PM, though if included in this poll, I would have picked Rudd. Give him at least 2 terms, perhaps 3 before he hands it over to Gillard the Warrior!
How moronic can the opposition get? Today they tried to single handedly turn parliament into a complete circus.
To summarise what has occurred. The new government shifted private member’s business from Monday morning to a dedicated day on Fridays. This means Ministers do not need to attend parliament on Fridays, because by definition they can’t raise private member’s business.
To make this operational, the Government amended the standing orders of the House so that any divisions or quoroum calls made on Fridays will be taken on the next sitting day, i.e. usually a Monday when everyone will be at Parliament House. These amendments passed, because by definition the Government has the majority in the House.
So then we come to today, the opposition repeatedly asked for divisions which have been defered until the next sitting day. This led to Steve Ciobo, the member for Moncrief having spray of general abuse at the Government and the speaker. He was told to sit down repeatedly (from memory about three times) before Speaker Jenkins asked him to leave the chamber for one hour. But he STILL refused to leave! So The Speaker had to ask the Sergent at Arms to forcibly remove him from the chamber.
But this STILL wasn’t enough for the opposition. After this occurred Tony Abbott stood up and just started ARGUING with the speaker! He didn’t move any motion, or take any point of order, he simply started shouting at the speaker. So The Speaker had no option but to kick Abbott out for one hour.
At this point The Speaker vacated the chair for 15 minutes, because the opposition seemed intent on doing ANYTHING to stop any private members business from being called on. After parliament resumed, the opposition allowed discussions on organ donations, and health services, before the stupidity started up again when Luke Hartsuyker brought a cardboard cut out of the Prime Minister into the chamber. He was repeatedly asked to remove it from the chamber, but he refused, so the deputy speaker kicked him out for an hour. But instead of taking the card board cut out with him, he just passed it along to Joe Hockey, who tried to produce some ridiculous excuse to explain why a card board cut out should be allowed in the House of Representatives.
That’s about all I heard, but I can only summarise by saying that we should all thank God or something that the pack of clowns that comprise the opposition are no longer government the country. They have shown today that they are more interested in stunts than contributing to parliament. They understand full well that the Government has the numbers to change the standing orders, and it is a simple fact of opposition that sometimes you are working within the bounds of rules that you don’t actually like.
If they didn’t want that system in operation now, they should’ve done something about it when they were in government.
Harsuyker never left the chamber after being repeatedly asked over a period of about 10 minutes. He continued to refuse to leave, the Opposition continued to simply yell at the deputy Speaker from the benches and the dispatch box, so she suspended sitting stating that “Since the member for Cowper refuses to leave the chamber, the Speaker’s position is untenable.” (I don’t know if the house ever came back, since the cricket was on)
Great work from the Opposition. Really constructive. I have never seen such disrespect for the Speaker’s position and it frankly sickens me.
The interesting thing about today’s shenannigans was that it was wholeheartedly endorsed by all the top Libs, including Abbott, Nelson, Hockey and even Turnbull. Are these guys planning to spend the next 3 years still fighting the last election with ridiculous PR stunts like this?
It seems to me that if I were a backbencher, I would appreciate having a chance to stand up and have my say in the chamber.
My local member here on the Gold Coast, Steve Ciobo, became the first MP forcibly evicted in nearly 20 years. Ciobo is in tight with the wingnut crazies mob, people like Albrechtsen and Arthur Chrenkoff, so expect more of the same.
He also has previous form getting physical in parliament house (he helped Howard cordon off GWB when the Greens’ Kerry Nettle was trying to confront him).
One to watch!
Meanwhile, Dennis Sham-I-am tries to pretend this is a serious point of procedure.
I wonder which ‘stunt’ today will receive more approval from the public:
The Opposition making an absolute joke out of our Parliament (and themselves).
OR
Kevin Rudd and Jenny Macklin visiting Indigenous communities and flood victims in Queensland…
Hmmm, that’s a tough one.
has there even been a previous opposition leader poll where the current leader is FOURTH?? Surely this is some sort of record
This is all very interesting for those who delight in poking fun at the Liberal Party but I don’t really think it matters who is leading that Party at the moment. The future belongs to Kevin Michael Rudd and his team, and I expect that will be the case for a while yet. Moreover, this is an unremarkable state of affairs. One side has just been dismissed by the voters, and those voters now (quite reasonably) think that the fresh team should be allowed some time at the crease without the dismissed team sharing any limelight. I’m going to watch the batters now at the crease (particularly the captain) and hope they acquit themselves well because if they don’t, I know many who supported them are going to be adversely affected.
time to rally the blogosphere
and deliver a message that this aint on
the kittens have shown their claws
The last paragraph in Shanahan’s most recent opinion piece really does show which side he is batting for (in case anyone was still wondering):
“There appears to have been some ill-considered preparation on the Government side for how they were actually going to operate a Play Parliament without a Prime Minister and question time and face an Opposition determined to go to any lengths.”
Play Parliament?! Is Dennis using Liberal Party press releases in his opinion columns now, or is he writing press releases for the Liberal Party?
Personally, I don’t think the Government expected the Opposition to have complete disregard for the authority of the Speaker and the rules of the standing orders of the Parliament. Now they know better.
Oh come off it you Labor apparatchiks. Admittedly, it was a circus in parliament but you cannot have Gillard using workchoices props for every day of the last week, and then PM props disallowed. That’s a blatant double standard.
The deputy speaker was awful, completely incompetent and had no idea how to keep control of parliament.
[Meanwhile, Dennis Sham-I-am tries to pretend this is a serious point of procedure.]
It is serious – the opposition today refused to abide by any ruling of the chair.
This is what happens when born to rule types end up in opposition.
[Oh come off it you Labor apparatchiks. Admittedly, it was a circus in parliament but you cannot have Gillard using workchoices props for every day of the last week, and then PM props disallowed. That’s a blatant double standard.]
You IDIOT. Two Liberal hacks were told to LEAVE THE CHAMBER, and they refused to LEAVE THE CHAMBER.
Oppositions FREQUENTLY work within standing orders that they disagree with. But for parliament to operate at all, when the speaker says something IT MUST BE FOLLOWED.
[The deputy speaker was awful, completely incompetent and had no idea how to keep control of parliament.]
That is because the Opposition refused to abide by any of her rulings.
Typical born to rule Liberal crap, they can’t handle opposition.
Hear, hear!
“Nelson and Alexander Downer are both on 9 per cent”. Speaks volumes
Shows On,
I resent your needlessly vulgar personal attacks.
They refused to leave the chamber because the Deputy Speaker was incognisant of previous rulings on props. She labelled the prop “offensive” – a double standard, given Gillard’s antics during previous QTs.
[I resent your needlessly vulgar personal attacks.]
Go to a different forum then.
[They refused to leave the chamber because the Deputy Speaker was incognisant of previous rulings on props. She labelled the prop “offensive” – a double standard, given Gillard’s antics during previous QTs.]
It is NOT inconsistent! When the speaker tells a member to leave the chamber, the member has to leave the chamber!
The only inconsistency is from the members who are TOLD to leave but DON’T leave!
You just can’t admit that Hockey was clutching at NOTHING, he had NOTHING to justify someone being told to remove something from the chamber, then leave the chamber, but who refused to remove the item or leave the chamber!
Why is it that Liberals actually don’t care about democracy?
I rather think that a month’s suspension from parliament and the suspension of pay and perks for that period (coupled with non entitlement to Centrelink payments for the duration) would put a stop to this nonsense on the part of otherwise unemployable knobheads.
The issue of the props is completely irrelevant to the fact that the member for Cowper refused to obey the deputy Speaker’s ruling that he leave the chamber.
Nothing can excuse this behaviour. It is clear contempt of Parliament.
And how many incidence of double standard did we see from those clowns when they held the Government benches? Never once heard you attack Hawker for his inconsistency, when repeatedly throwing out the then Opposition. I think my partner, who just posted on another blog, has it about right: This just shows the Libs and Nats cannot handle being in Opposition. Suddenly they seem human, says Tom of Melbourne (2.53pm). Appearances can be deceptive, can’t they? The actually appear the way they always have – a disorganised group of Howler Monkeys. Only now they are grieving over the demise of the alpha male, whose successor deserves no respect. The only relationship to humans are their opposable thumbs.
Loved this comment from Shanahan’s blog.
[Just when you think the Opposition have reached the bottom of the swamp, they find a new basement. De-licious! ]
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/dennisshanahan/index.php/theaustralian/comments/rudd_less_parliament_loses_all_direction
Yes, his justification was the apparent stupidity of the deputy speaker.
At least the Speaker had sense to use the seargent to keep things amicable.
No 28
David Hawker was a brilliant, upstanding member and Speaker of parliament.
ShowsOn: you seem to have an outstanding knowledge of politics stretching back over many years and particularly from the perspective of one side. I renew an earlier (unanswered) enquiry: are you a staffer or former staffer for an Australian Labor Party parliamentarian, past or present? You will note this question is capable of an answer which does not jettison the anonymity you enjoy on these comments threads by using a pseudonym.
There is no justification for disobeying the Speaker! I really don’t understand what you’re trying to say, GP.
Is it appropriate that the Speaker needed to employ the Seargent at Arms to FORCIBLY EJECT the member for Moncrieff? Personally, I think that is reprehensible and unjustifiable under any circumstances.
Errrrr GP. I think you just fell out of your parallel universe.
No 33
Yes, it is appropriate for the speakers to use any means at their disposal to keep parliament under control.
Hawker kept the rabble under control by throwing out ALP members, a record number at that.
The referee shows a player a red card and he refuses to leave. What do you do? I think you will find that play is suspended or called off. Afterwards, the tribunal will award the match to the non-offending side and the player will be fined heavily and suspended for twelve months.
[And how many incidence of double standard did we see from those clowns when they held the Government benches? Never once heard you attack Hawker for his inconsistency,]
The most famous example of Hawker’s hypocrisy was when he allowed Tony Abbott to call Julia Gillard a “sniveling grub” without asking him to withdraw. But when THE VERY NEXT DAY Gillard used the same term to describe Abbott, Hawker named her and had her kicked from parliament for 24 hours. See here: http://tinyurl.com/3b3etv
However, just because that was blatantly hypocritical didn’t mean Gillard refused to leave the chamber! She made a point of how hypocritical it was the following day in a question to The Speaker, but she didn’t at any point defy the ruling of the chair.
Do you think it was appropriate for the member for Moncrieff to force the Speaker to take that action?
When asked to leave the chamber, did any of the ALP members in opposition refuse and subsequently be forcibly ejected by the Seargent at Arms?
[Do you think it was appropriate for the member for Moncrieff to force the Speaker to take that action?]
Perhaps not.
[When asked to leave the chamber, did any of the ALP members in opposition refuse and subsequently be forcibly ejected by the Seargent at Arms?]
They were never allowed to get that far.
[At least the Speaker had sense to use the seargent to keep things amicable.]
HAHAHHAAHAH you idiot! Joe Hockey CHALLENGED Jenkins for reverting to using the Sargent at Arms. He wanted to know what standing order allows a member to be forcibly removed, even though it has been a convention of Westminster parliaments for hundreds of years.
Even the things you think The Speaker did well the Opposition challenged, which isn’t surprising, because they were challenging EVERYTHING.
You need to admit they were trying ANYTHING to stop the House from considering private member’s business, which is the reason it was sitting in the first place.
[Yes, it is appropriate for the speakers to use any means at their disposal to keep parliament under control.]
How can they when members of parliament constantly defy their rulings?
[ShowsOn: you seem to have an outstanding knowledge of politics stretching back over many years and particularly from the perspective of one side. I renew an earlier (unanswered) enquiry: are you a staffer or former staffer for an Australian Labor Party parliamentarian, past or present?]
No I’m not, and never have been.
[They were never allowed to get that far.]
That’s because they follow the rules, irrespective of how much they disagree with them.
But of course Liberals think rules apply to others, but not them.
Can’t this behaviour be considered sedition? If so can’t we give these mongrels a fair trial and then take ’em out and gibbet ’em.
Come come, Generic Person , you can do better than that, even while defending the indefensible. Don’t let me down, I had you picked as one of a handful of competent warriors for the right!
[They were never allowed to get that far.]
GP. I see. They didn’t voluntarily restrain themselves from going too far and forcing the speaker to take action.
The Speaker somehow forced them to restrain themselves.
Yeah. Very logical. It must be true. GP has spoken!
The referee shows a player a red card and he refuses to leave. What do you do? I think you will find that play is suspended or called off. Afterwards, the tribunal will award the match to the non-offending side and the player will be fined heavily and suspended for twelve months.
And so would the player’s club be fined.
I’m glad to hear that you don’t think that Hartsuyker’s behaviour was appropriate, GP.
However, I’m not sure what you mean when you say that the ALP members in opposition “were never allowed” to behave similarly. Allowed by what or whom?
None of the members of parliament are “allowed” to behave like this, but today’s proceedings in the House of Representatives showed that any member can disregard the Speaker’s rulings if they have sufficient contempt for the procedures of the Australian Parliament.
Surely this is a humiliating indictment on the Leader of the Opposition that he allowed his shadow cabinet and members of the Opposition to behave with such naked contempt for the jobs that they were ELECTED to do!
No 43
Honestly, it’s all a bit of a laugh. It is a pointless day, even if the rabid leftards continue to defend Rudd’s rule change.
Parliament isn’t interesting without Question Time.
It may seem pointless to you, and it may be uninteresting without Question Time to you, but think about the constituents of the members of Parliament who would have had an opportunity to actually be represented by the raising of private member’s business today, if the sitting was not constantly interrupted and eventually suspended by the Opposition.
Generic Person has lost the debate and is now resorting to personal abuse. Typical.
Late news is that a Newspoll of 1,100 respondents found the paper cut out of Rudd the preferred Leader of the LNP Opposition coming in at 80%, followed by a paper cut out of Julia Gillard at 15%