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.
Scorpio #97, lol, not that I know of. 🙂
Bushfire Bill #94, your right it probably won’t be a good look on tv, depending how it is presented but in three years time, no one bar us political tragics will remember.
GP – “It is hardly hypocritical. The issue here is that if the PM wants to extend Parliamentary sittings in order to enhance the democratic process, then he should fully commit to it, rather than approaching it half-heartedly.”
Let me get this straight. Allowing backbenchers to have a greater say in parliament is not enhancing the democratic process? I’m missing something here. Oh, and stopping this process from happening is democratic? I’m definitely missing something.
It is easy to say it was the Liberal party behaving badly. But was it predominantly the Nelson forces or or the Turnbull faction that was bunging on the blue?
101 John – stop coming over as a reasonable, logical conservative supporter. How are we meant to argue with you when you do that?
No 102
Mr Bruce, regardless of what Mr Rudd says about backbenchers having a say, the very fact that the most important tenet of Parliament – the ability to vote – has been suspended on Friday sittings is just ridiculous. Futhermore, if he considers what backbenchers have to say so heartily important, then why did he absent himself?
105 And why couldn’t the Liberal factions have asked the question quietly and orderly instead of descending to a rabble GP?
Gary #104, sorry mate. I’ll try harder. 😉
PS Generic Person #98 is right
GP still dodges answering my very simple question.
Answer the question GP: tell us something praiseworthy about today’s antics.
107 [PS Generic Person #98 is right]
You’ll get no argument with anybody here about that JOM. We have looked everywhere and can find none to his right.
No 108
I have already answered your question. I shall not waste any more time answering questions for people who refuse to read as if in some sort of trance of insolence..
110 Great description of the factionalism on display from the Liberals GP.
“sort of trance of insolence”
Can someone tell me if Howard is still PM and Malcolm “we’ll make it up as we go along” Turnbull is still Environment Minister? We’ve had a Government say they’ll base their climate change policy ad nauseum on the much-awaited Garnaut Report and the science in it. But now it’s out, we’re going to ignore it and stick with the 2050 reductions mooted before the election because they were more politically expedient.
WTF people!! I know Rudd’s done a few good things (mainly symbolic) but it seems he’s going to “me too” the Rodent on slithering his way out of showing some guts. And Penny Wong’s expression looks very similar to Ruddock’s IMHO.
112 Apparently this is an interim report but it doesn’t look good. Looks like an attempt to weasel out of committments.
You have to ask: what sort of constituency would regard the opposition’s juvenile, petulant, tactless, gormless, insolent, impudent, smug, stupid, brattish and incurably unamusing parliamentary behaviour as worthy? As worthy of our democracy’s primary law-making institution? As worthy of a legislature that has so many urgent generational challenges facing it (such as climate change, the water crisis, Aboriginal disadvantage)?
I know.
The juvenile, petulant, tactless, gormless, insolent, impudent, smug, stupid, brattish and incurably unamusing morons who voted for them.
(With all due respect.)
On the news the Liberals looked like a bunch of spoilt brats throwing a tantrum. Maybe we should just let them hold their breath for as long as they like.
Someone should run a poll as to who would be the more popular leader, Brendan Nelson, or the cardboard cutout of Kevin Rudd. Perhaps internal Liberal polling is the reason they’re all so eager to have their photo’s taken next to cardboard Rudd.
No 114
Thanks for the reprinting the thesaurus Mr Westie, it seems you laborites are in desperate need of an education.
115 Think it’s shaping up more like capsicum spray and water canon just to get them to leave when told.
Its amazing even 10 year old kids can see how things are changing for the good. One 10 year old girl has said her friends are commenting on all the good changes that are happening under Kevin.
105 Generic Person – and you still defend the actions of the opposition? Have a think GP. Surely you can think of a better way of making a point rather than making parliament unworkable with stupid stunts. Hell, walk out and don’t take part. Easy. I can’t believe you, as a conservative, is justifying this behaviour. If labor did this you would be all over them and you know it.
118
I’d love to have been the one that ejected the turkey…stick the baton where it fits and parade him out like a paddlepop.
[If labor did this you would be all over them and you know it.]
Yes, I would be. David Hawker always ejected roudy members.
Mr Jenkins should do the same. The trouble makers will soon learn. I’ve already made this point, but you continue your feigned indignation atop your moral high horse anyway.
I hope Rudd continues with this Friday parliament unchanged up to the next election. Having the Libs continue to carry on like this close to the election would show Australia how unelectable they really are.
William doesn’t mention her in the thread head, and there have been around 115 comments so far and Madam Mesmer hasn’t blipped anyone’s radar. Perhaps she’s still on the runway, not having taken off yet. Or maybe she’s moth-balled in the Coalition hanger waiting to overtake Dolly in the leadership pecking order. cf. Roy the Boy’s figures.
Guess when you have an intensity problem as serious as Madam M’s, a lot of people think it’s best if they just look the other way.
123 [The trouble makers will soon learn]
Doubt it GP, they will just learn that it destabilises Nelson and gives them a win. How are they going to learn when they are positively rewarded for their nonsense.
You can only laugh at the plaintive bleating of Liberal MPs and their apologists in the blogosphere as they whinge about the parliamentary proceedings being abused by the government. This from a party that systematically abused question time and Senate proceedings over the last 11 years.
o The former Speaker was a disgrace and was probably the most biased one in the history of the parliament.
o They whinge about Julia’s humorous bagging of WorkChoices yet believed that the rantings of Costello and Abbott during earlier question times, to name just 2 offenders, were parliamentary eloquence. Those two were past-masters at abusing the process.
o The Liberal Party is incapable of dealing with defeat. Their behaviour today was truly infantile and their promise to carry on like this each Friday will come back to bite them on their collective bums. As others have noted, the MSM would have crucified the ALP if they had done this last year. We know what will be parrotted by Albrechtsen, Shananan, Bolt and the rest of the revolting News Ltd crew, but we also know that most people will see this behaviour for what it is – pathetic.
The Liberal Party had set the bar of Parliamentary behaviour so low that I thought no one could get it lower. I was wrong. The current bunch of Liberals have set it on the floor.
123 Generic Person – yes Hawker did GP and guess what, those asked to leave went without question. They certainly didn’t have to be escorted out. Now think hard GP, whose fault is it if when asked to leave the champer the member refuses to do so? The member or the Speakers? Don’t think too hard, it’s not difficult to answer. You’re blaming the wrong person GP. Your heroes need to look into the mirror to see the real culprits.
Comments by Bushfire Bill and Inner Westie deleted.
112 Diogenes –
Yes Diogenes, this was the big political event of the week. They just about wiped the whole Garnaut exercise before it started. If I were Garnaut I’d resign the retainer now. This is a miserable pathetic cave-in by Rudd on THE main issue.
Where’s the leadership??
Honeymoon over. Sickmaking season starts…
and continues …
Driving all day today as I was, the radio kept telling me it was a shocker for Labor in NSW as well. Everyone has known the NSW ministry has had some corrupt mongrels for a while, and it’s great to see some of these crooks likely to face the music. It seems the party will put up with their brazen corruption and gross incompetence as long as the bastards kept the money coming in.
some serious website lag for the last half hour! I hope all is well in the state of bludging pollsters.
112
Diogenes
Ah yes, the old “my target is bigger than your target” syndrome.
Let’s not forget here people, that most of us on this board will be adding to the carbon cycle personally by 2050, and that it’s not even guaranteed that there will be a two party system in a country called Australia by then!
(Republic of Barbies, maybe?? LOL)
So getting all hot and bothered about a report in 2008 and projected cuts in CO2 for 2050 is not making much sense, is it?
Hmmm Rudd sticks to election promise of 50% by 2050 and is crucified. The guy is only trying to actually *keep*election*promises*
A lot can be done within that 50% figure and an updated figure taken to the next election.
At one stage today the House was ‘quietly discussing’ increasing organ donations, an urgent need, when some clown came in again with the cardboard cut out.
Don’t you just love the arrogant hypocrisy displayed with this.
[The Federal Opposition says Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is putting the bipartisan approach to Indigenous affairs at risk by making his first visit to an Aboriginal community today without Brendan Nelson.]
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/22/2169400.htm?section=justin
It’s more than passing strange, that Nelson was given an opportunity a week ago to join him for this visit and declined, deciding that it was more important to attend today’s sitting.
We now know why, but to have the nerve to criticize Rudd for not taking Nelson with him today, shows just how out of touch and how incompetent/unprincipled this rabble really are.
Diogenese and Jaundiced View, I admit to being somewhat taken aback by Penny Wong’s response to the interim Garnaut Report. Why couldn’t she say, “Well, this is very worrying in relation to the targets we took to the electorate. We need to consider the final report, and some other advice, particularly given the current and emerging economic situation, domestically and globally, and may need to reset the targets.” ? I just hope they’re not going to rigidly stick to what they took to the election, such as the tax cuts, no matter what, despite changed circumstances, information and so on. That way, a one term phenomenon lies, in my view. BTW, Steve, I did thank you and Unicorn on the other thread for the info. you provided.
The ABC TV News was interesting to say the least. Images of confected outrage from the regressed Opposition in the Parliament and Kevin out speaking with Aboriginals in Walgett and hugging flood sufferers in Mackay. Despite my deep suspicion of the online ABC news reporting, as well as some current deep concern about the TV reporting of a current court case (the judge is deeply displeased!), I thought the juxtaposition was just brilliant.
Now, Generic Person will probably accuse me of being in need of an education, with some whacky adjective attached to qualify said need.
Scorpio, Yep, that style of ABC “reporting” is exactly what’s getting right up my nose. A few other Bludgers have noted similar and repeated offences. Might be time for a concerted response to this. Do they think no one notices? Particularly people who watch or listen to the ABC? Dills, drongos, are they?
132 Thomarse – The Garnaut process was supposed to inform the post-election policy. Nothing else makes sense. It was the dismissiveness of the comments today by Wong- as Harry SO said at 134 – why the need to be so strong?
Unless you’re trying to be more conservative than the conservatives, which is what I suspect. If so, again, it’s pathetic. Where’s the acceptance of rational scientific opinion as a basis for policy-making? I thought that was what we were supposed to get from Rudd.
131 KR- I believe that was the Rodent’s argument for not setting a target before the last election. Not especially compelling and I’m hoping you were not being serious.
132 Thomarse- Rudd said their policy would be guided by the science to do what was necessary, rather than the politics. Now that they’re in power, it’s the politics rather than the science that they listen to. And they’re doing it because they are so cynical (small “c”) that they know they’ll get away with it, because the Opposition can’t get up and say they would reduce emissions more than Labor.
134 Harry- I completely agree. They have already binned the full Garnaut report before they’ve even got it. The spirit of John Howard is alive and well in current Labor leadership. It’s just better disguised.
The Garnaut terms of reference are at:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/general/garnaut-climate-change-review/2007/04/30/1177788044882.html
Kevin Rudd on 30 April 2007:
It will be a critical report in informing, for example, the shape of the emissions trading scheme that we as a national government would then implement. That is one of the key reasons why we need to have this report done as well. One is to advance a clear argument, a clear and quantifiable argument with public debate about the economic and jobs cost of not acting on climate change. The other is to analysis clearly and carefully the economic impact of alternative mitigation strategies on climate change. That helps shape how we design for example, an emissions trading regime. (http://www.alp.org.au/media/0407/pcloo300.php)
The emphasis is on the economic impact of global warming. I don’t really see that the current government can be blamed for taking this as only part of its input to a Grand Unified Plan.
The pollster need to make it more interesting, how about adding say Juli Gillard to the list of preferred Liberal leader and see if she out polls Turnbull.
137
Diogenes
What we do now, and in the life of this government is FAR more important than getting hot under the collar about 2050.
Not that it’s not important, but if we fail NOW, it may be of academic interest only what we might be doing then.
138 ViggoP- One of the core premises of the report is as follows:
“The weight of scientific opinion that developed countries need to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 60 percent by 2050 against 2000 emission levels, if global greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are to be stabilised to between 450 and 550ppm by mid century.”
The target of 450ppm delivers a 50% chance of a 2 degree C increase in temp and 550ppm almost guarantees it on the current evidence. Rudd only promised a 50% reduction. Rudd’s refusal to be guided by science and Penny Wong’s contemptuous dismissal of altering the target guarantees significant climate change will happen under a Rudd Government.
I can’t help but laugh at the global warming hysteria.
Get a grip Diogenes: [guarantees significant climate change will happen under a Rudd Government.]
What the hell are you on about? The 60% target is exactly what was recommended by the IPCC report.
Harry
unfortunately the major changes will happen post budget (as with other areas)
though moves are afoot via ‘friends of the abc’
expect some early movement from ideological warriors
142 GP- Rudd’s target is 50%. 60% is actually more than 50%, by about 10% I think. And the November IPCC report was more pessimistic than the ones the 60% was based on.
Either way, Diogenes, to say that Australia will suffer “significant climate change” under Rudd is just a ridiculous statement. Promulgating hysteria doesn’t aid the debate.
Crikey Whitey,
If you are on-line, here is a follow-up on what you were discussing last night.
[South Australia’s Treasurer and Deputy Premier Kevin Foley says he hopes that failed federal candidate Nicole Cornes will consider standing for parliament again.
Mr Foley was pivotal in convincing Ms Cornes to join the ALP and contest the Adelaide southern seat of Boothby at last year’s poll.
Liberal Andrew Southcott narrowly retained the seat when Ms Cornes failed to get a swing of the magnitude in some other coalition seats.]
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/22/2170408.htm?section=justin
GP- I am using the term “significant” in its scientific sense, as in a variation caused demonstrably other than by chance (within 95% confidence limits). A 2 degree change would be significant. I’m not suggesting that within the 3-6 years of Rudd that this would happen, I’m saying that if his approach was continued by 2050 there would be a significant (more than 2 degree) change in temperature. This is a factual argument based on the best available evidence which is not promulgating hysteria.
Downer said he did not attend parliament as question time was for the front benches only of the government and opposition, yet when labor make Friday a day for backbenchers to be heard and to voice their and their constituents concerns the libs go feral.
Hockey was trying to make a point about the legalities of suspending standing orders and the order of procedures when a vote is suspended. It was a fair point, but to complain they wanted Friday as a question time when one of their senior libs in Downer has said backbenchers are not heard and should not bother turning up defeats their argument, especially when they complained about Friday sittings happening at all.
This article from the SMH has a few details on the Tavener poll on NSW, only 550 people sampled. 60% have lost confidence in the NSW govt, poor results on roads and public transport but Iemma gets better recognition than O’Farrell.
2pp is 51-49, small sample but why the libs are not streets ahead in NSW shows the sorry state of their party. The libs need to do in NSW what labor did federally, give O’Farrell or a new leader extensive powers in deciding candidates and the front bench. If O’Farrell could cleanse the libs of the far right and religous extremists and was given decent power he could start seeing poll numbers that labor enjoyed under Rudd in 07.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/02/16/1202760661169.html
SMH article re the Tavener poll. How can 60% of the people have no confidence in the govt yet still prefer it over the opposition?
This will have Bill spitting,
“A former Liberal government minister in SA Robert Brokenshire is being tipped to take Mr Evans’s seat in the Legislative Council.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/22/2170418.htm?section=justin