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.
Family First are Finally Finished!!!!!!!!!!!
How do you work that out, Brenton?
A few things about this morning’s question time debacle:
1. The Liberals’ behaviour was abhorrent and they deserve censure for it. Not only that, it was amazingly stupid, because they had a couple of points that (whilst possibly trivial) deserved to be heard, and all that’s happened is their antics have become the story.
2. The Friday Minister-free sittings are a joke and one has to wonder whether Rudd’s motives were lily white in introducing them. I feel queasy about the concept that there can be a sitting day on which divisions are not permitted (I’m assuming this has never been the case previously, I’ll happily stand corrected if it has been). Whilst the current government’s majority is not under threat, a future government with a shaky grip on the House might want to extend this provision to make it hard for the Opposition to vote them down. It’s just not a good direction for Parliament to head in. Another thing is that (whatever the previous government’s sins in this area) this new set-up does seem to be further institutionalising Ministerial contempt for Parliament. I hope Rudd gets rid of Minister-free sittings after this session (or this year).
3. The Speaker should have been firmer on Gillard’s use of props earlier this week.
4. The cardboard Rudd was a vaguely reasonable (if incredibly juvenile) way of making points 2 and 3 above. Clever in its way, as it made both points within the same stunt. But the Opposition yelling and screaming, and above all, refusing to walk when the umpire’s finger went up, was just unbelievably crass, and a disgrace. I revoke (for the time being anyway) my statement of two days ago that the Libs were showing signs of wanting to win again.
Sorry “non-question time debacle”
Dio @ 112,
I have to admit I’m freaking out about climate change and I think most others with half a brain are doing the same.
But … would there be any practical difference over the next 2-3 years if we committed to (say) 90% reduction by 2050, as opposed to 50 or 60%? (This is not intended to be a leading question, I honestly don’t know the answer).
Brenton Says: @ 151,
February 22nd, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Family First are Finally Finished!!!!!!!!!!!
[Family First now has two members in the South Australian Upper House and Victorian Senator Steve Fielding in Canberra.
With the demise of the Democrats as an Upper House force in politics, Mr Evans is confident that Family First and the Greens will have pivotal roles.]
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/22/2170418.htm?section=justin
William Bowe Says:
February 22nd, 2008 at 9:19 pm
How do you work that out, Brenton?
Scorpio says,
How do you work that out, Brenton?
Hello Scorpio, just arrived home.
I will have a look at the article. And yes, that is exact. About Kevin Foley.
I have heard before that Nicole may well stand again.
She would very likely win. I have pollbludged heaps on this matter, which you may have missed. And studied the AEC results in every single booth. (Records kept on a spreadsheet) Picked the likely winners and losers, to test myself before I embarked, and got them right.
Some will never go Labor, but many could easily have been won. Nicole has the qualities of charm offensive combined with intelligence and a philosophy, based on her own rather challenging life experiences, which aligns with either small L Lib or Labor. Actually, as I write, Maxine comes to mind. Of course that Maxine has huge experience and is accustomed to public exposure.
The very thing the media here spotted and honed in on, to her disadvantage.
Yet Nicole seems to possess the intelligence, qualities and basic decency which we see in Maxine.
I heard on ABC Nat news at 5.00 pm a promo, interestingly, for the upcoming Australian Story on Nicole. This indicates a serious push, to my mind.
My understanding (I have close friends working in the field, who are internationally respected – one is an IPCC member) is that we could close down all carbon emissions tomorrow and still be looking at severe climate change.
The reaction to any kind of predicted challenge goes something like this: outright denial, sceptism, questioning, qualified acceptance and then, usually, a jump straight to total belief.
The jump can be accompanied by total despair (we’re all doomed, there’s nothing we can do) or over compensation (we must close down all coal fired power stations immediately, stop driving cars etc).
As always, rationality lies between the two positions – yes, we can do things but we must keep some perspective.
So my friends, climate change experts, have air conditioned houses, drive cars, etc etc – they say it’s important not to buy into guilt but to understand their impact on the environment and compensate for it where they can (so air conditioning the house meant also buying solar panels to compensate for the amount of power used by ac).
Adaption is actually more important than mitigation, because SOME degree of climate change is already happening and will continue to happen. Mitigation simply means that, at some point at about 30 years from now, we’ll reach a plateau rather than keep rising.
The Garnaut report was an interim one. It’s only been out a couple of days. It would be very foolish of anyone to make any commitments based on it yet.
It would also be very foolish to make judgments about future government actions on it yet.
Wait and see.
Crikey Whitey,
With William’s kind indulgence, I can report back to you following our discussion last night.
My in-laws did know your parents.
Father in-law knew your Dad well.
I now know which schools you all attended, church also.
An Aitchson lives next door to the in-laws.
My wife was also a member of the Tennis Club but believes she is about 10 years younger than you and never played there at the same time.
In-laws knew most of the families you mentioned, some very well and my wife went to school with many younger members of them.
Diogenes – Garnaut himself said that it was a waste of time going for the 90% reduction on our own. Given that few countries have committed to any worthwhile reduction it seems pointless for us get hairy chested at this point. There’s a lot of hard bargaining still to come.
Not that I believe it will get us anywhere. History has time and time again shown that humans will continue to foul their nest even when it’s clear that doing so will destroy them. Easter Island being the most sobering example.
No wonder this country is stuffed.
We have a two-party state with two self serving groups that pretend they represent different philosophical positions (“left” and “right” hahaha ) (is it the Laberal and Libor parties????).
This parliamentary debate is a sort of pre-school petulant debate over nothing (appologes to more mature pre-schollers) … although I agree the liberal party is extraordinary in its childishness ….. i think this country is not served by either party….. both parties agree on preventing any real political competition ….. so much for market forces!!!
I agree Mayo .. It is inconceivable that so many countries with so many powerful (short-sighted) groups in control will agree with any thing .. just look at Australia’s political parties (both Labor and Liberal)..
Zoom, if you’re interested, you might refer to my post at 134. Maybe, just maybe, the Fed. Govt. although newish, needs to be less rigidly restrained by it’s election promises?
Scorpio.
Today I took a friend of my oldest brother through the the pertinent bits of the thread. She arrived at your ‘ in laws in Broadway’ and gasped. Not your Broadway? Read on, sez I.
This is fascinating and remarkable. You must give me a clue. Who are the in-laws?
Did you see the later comment by Rusty on that thread? I would love to know who that is.
My name is Helen.
If the Liberal Party behaves in this fashion for too long they will begin to be seen as a joke and lose further credibility. Given how far they are behind with the little talent remaining this is the last thing they need. They should be seeking ways to regain credibility. The class clown, even though giving everyone a good laugh, never got elected to be president.
Rudd has 70-77% approval rating, Nelson 9% and they decide to become a rabble in parliament? Where are they getting their advice?
Tanner and Abbott on LL
no not disagree Kina , but the Friday itting day is not a clever political decion because the Libs are just going to TRY & paint Rudd as a 4 day a week man
Crikey Whitey,
I mentioned to my better half about Rusty’s post and she was quite intrigued also. I assume Rusty is female.
Clue……same surname as a certain author by the name of Michael Cr…..n.
My wife thought that might be your name.
I take it you are now closely related to the Whites.
Harry , how is Rudd going to be able to delay the tax cuts ?
**Retraction alert**
I have erroneously said Rudd committed to a 50% reduction by 2050. Mea culpa. It was 60% (apologies to GP BTW. God I hate saying that!)
http://news.smh.com.au/govt-wont-budge-on-2050-climate-target/20080222-1trj.html
The gist of the argument stands though. I’m certainly not saying the 2050 target will hugely affect what happens in the next 2-3 years. And I agree with MF about the little Oz can do by itself.
What disgusts me is that the Rudd Government said it would base its targets on science rather than politics (esp the Garnaut Report). Now that science is not giving it the answers it wants, it’s decided to put it’s head in the sand (or an even darker place) where it prefers the view. It has demonstrated that it will play politics and will ignore dissenting views and expert opinion, just like the Rodent.
In the words I quoted a few days ago from the great man John Maynard Keynes “When my information changes, I change my opinion. What do you do, Sir?”
Oh Ron. I would not dismiss you as a man of few letters.
It will be all right.
No 158
It is nice to know that members of the IPCC recognise the realities of the climate debate. Hysteria, needless guilt-mongering and economy-destroying policy does not solve the ultimate problem.
Even the Garnaut interim report acknowledges that Australia’s total emissions are low compared to other nations. So, without an adequate global agreement that includes developing nations, it is naive to think that Australia can have any material effect on global gas abatement.
Damn, this Crikey…Scorpio..Rusty thingy is much better then all that other political rubbish 😉
It’s also proof that something interesting can happen in SA 🙂
Ron, I thought, and I could be wrong as i’m not any sort of economic expert, that the tax cuts, as promised, could be chanelled into, oh, some sort of nation building exercise. Audit the nation for alternative energy options in terms of natural resources, what research is being done in alternative energy, what are the options for weaning coal companies and getting them to focuss elsewhere, that sort of stuff.
Crikey Whitey,
Did you catch my post @ 159?
It must be an unusual feeling to realise that someone you do not know personally, living 3,000 K/s away, can know so much about you?
Would appreciate your comment in this regard.
Cheers, Scorpio.
No 170
Your apology is accepted Diogenes. However, with respect I do think Mr Garnaut’s proposed abatement targets to be too extreme. You cannot change economies overnight and the brevity with which he treats the hefty challenges of energy tansformation are not encouraging.
Actually GP no , we are 1% ahead of the Kyoto requirements
but I trifle because Garnaut is saying “action must be taken before 2020 by the World because the emissions have grown since the last analysis because of China & India’s growth
Mr Rudd …you said you’d rely on Garnaut’s science and substantially at least I expect you to do so
classified,
With all this intrigue being uncovered, it’s a shame Keelty and Co of the AFP couldn’t engage some of us to competently do some of their work for them.
Diogenes at 170, I share your distraught state, but ask you, as I ask myself, what is politics but the art of the possible. I’m damn sure that it was a Greek who came up with that.
Scorpio. Thanks for the clue.
Michael of Jurassic Park fame? If so, I don’t know the name. I will ask my older brother, who is presently out of contact. Not at all related to or intermarried with the Whites. My maiden name is McKeen.
Cannot guess Rusty’s gender, but I was the first girl after four boys.
Scorpio @ 178
lol… how true
[Actually GP no , we are 1% ahead of the Kyoto requirements]
To which post are you referring?
In any event the Kyoto targets allowed us to increase emissions to 108% of 1990 levels. Plus or minus 1% of that figure is still comparatively low, at least when looking at total annual emissions figures, to other developed nations who are also signatories to Kyoto.
I love watching Friday Night Crime. What a distinct pleasure for it be followed tonight, by Friday Night Farce, Lateline.
174
Harry ‘Snapper’ Organs Says:
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Ron, I thought, and I could be wrong as i’m not any sort of economic expert, that the tax cuts, as promised, could be chanelled into, oh, some sort of nation building exercise
Harry the crude reality is it is politics , the tax cuts can not be reversed otherwise Rudd would lose the next Election.
Not to appear contradictory however, the tax cuts will feed into consumption bloat the existing trade deficit debt of $440 billion , pressure over taxed capacity
at a time when money costs are increasing…all 3 factors lead to interest rate rises unless Tanner can offset. Economically the $31 billion should have gone to capacity (skills & projects) but Rudd had to match Howard’s promise to win
sorry for long blog
No 184
Governments should cut spending and cut taxes wherever possible. Individuals are the best deciders of how to spend their own money.
176 GP- I haven’t suggested that we change our energy policy at all based on the interim Garnaut Report (and will not suggest a change based solely on the full report). What galls me is Penny Wong refusing to consider changing her position because the election promise of 60% reduction by 2050 is more important to her than recent scientific evidence. She should be saying exactly what Harry said at 134. As you point out, the change is enormous given the speed the experts are telling us the world needs to change (and as has been pointed out, that will not happen). My impression was Garnaut was meant to tell us how to effect that change without disbanding our cities for communes.
BTW I also agree with Harry and think Rudd should halve the tax cuts and invest in buying back water licenses on the Murray, climate change technology research esp carbon sequestration and addressing the skills shortage.
Ron, that’s my and any number of other’s worry. That crude political demand will produce a less than desirable result.
Crikey Whitey,
Yeah, Jurassic Park is right.
I thought this short post on Tim Dunlop’s site was good.
[I agree Rudd is a brave man making the 60 percent promise. If we get to 2050 and he hasn’t delivered I’ll be voting him out. ]
http://blogs.news.com.au/news/blogocracy/index.php/news/comments/garnaut/
@180, On this blog, I am almost embarrassed to say it, my first name is Glen
My father was in the home builder’s when your father was. My mother Audrey was a good friend of your mother’s.
Well, we’re all experts here politically aren’t we?
GG said @ 185,
[Individuals are the best deciders of how to spend their own money.]
I beg to disagree, GG.
My wife thinks she is by far the best at deciding how to spend my money.
Well, when the shit hits the fan, it’s going to hit hard. Where will Howard, Blair and Bush end up I wonder?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/be360d5c-e0b0-11dc-b0d7-0000779fd2ac.html
Generic Person is a troll par excellence. Don’t feed him and he will go away.
Scorpio, how can you have any qualms about your wife’s spending? Are you sure the discounts and sale items have been adequately described?
Generic Person Says:
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:30 pm
No 184
Unfortunately at the moment our economy requires us not to spend, also given the popularity of SUV’s and drugs (booze my friend booze) I find this hard to believe.
Rusty @ 189,
Sorry to assume you were female.
Glad to see you are helping to unravel some of the intrigue which has been flowing since yesterday.
I wonder what else we can uncover this evening?
Suspect Garnaut was setting the tone to get Party’s focus.
His mandate included targets within our economic capacity & assume his finalk Report will do so & I hope Rudd accepts his report substantially
Do not understand anyone saying the costs of climate correction actions now will be daearer than the same actions forced on us in the longterm if we do not act now
Harry @ 194,
I’m not game to ask, Harry.
I’m not exactly tired of living quite yet.
No 193
No John. It’s just that you don’t like the argument and have no adequate response.
No 197
Admittedly I only had a cursory read of the Garnaut Report on the way home on the train yesterday evening (only to arrive at my car having been broken into by some errant criminal), but I personally thought his approach exuded too much”doomsday” scaremongering.