The Australian reports Newspoll has Labor’s lead back up to 57-43 after two fortnights at 55-45. No figures yet provided to back up its headline “Costello wanted as leader”. Hat tip yet again to James J.
UPDATE: Graphic here. It shows Peter Costello’s rating as preferred Liberal leader up to 41 per cent from 23 per cent in April (wrongly labelled in the graphic as April 2007), Brendan Nelson up from 15 per cent to 18 per cent and Malcolm Turnbull down from 25 per cent to 24 per cent – bearing in mind that 19 per cent has been freed up because Julie Bishop and Tony Abbott were not included in the question this time.
UPDATE 2 (31/7/08): Further attitudinal polling, including the finding that the Prime Minister is 3 per cent less experienced than he was six months ago.
UPDATE 3: Suggested Newspoll question format for next time: Is Rudd experienced? Has he ever been experienced?
excellent, Thanks Mr Comitatus
cheers onimod
LTEP-
have to disgree: the Dems supported the GST for example.
I think your criticism of the Greens as a single-issue focussed party has been justified in the past, but there has been a lot of work done to broaden the policy base. We won support from unions at the last election for our policy of repealing Workchoices that went further than Labour’s.
Part of the problem is that the MSM insists on only covering us in relation to environmental issues ( and misrepresenting us on drugs policy!), but if you check out the website you can see we have a very broad range of policies. Whether you agree with them or not is entirely another matter of course..:lol:
btw
100% agree re Fundies First.
More than welcome – there’s nothing worse than not being in on a joke.
Makes me feel for poor ol’ Brendan it does (sniff).
Are there any Treasury insiders lurking here? In the Australian Financial review today there was an interesting story about executive compensation in the light of the poor share results for this year. The negative returns mean that many executives with a lot of pay tied up in share bonuses should get a cut in pay. The gist of the article was that some executive remuneration committees were workign out how they might restructure the contracts so the executive pay DIDN’T fall too much. The article also refers to a Treasury review of this area. I’d be interested to know what that is if anyone can tell?
To me, this article illustrates just how badly the executive pay market is broken. The remuneration committes are supposed to work for shareholders! Lower exec pay is a GOOD outcome for them – it means costs are reduced. That such committees would even consider such restructuring illustrates that they do not work for shareholders – they work for their CEO boss/pal. One of teh few justificatiosn for huge bonuses when the share market boomed was that they took the risk of less pay when it went bust. If they still get the same pay now, then shareholders are simply being ripped off. So much for the fair go.
1254 😆
Just out of curiosity, who was Genious for the Environment in 2006 under the former government. Someone evidently gave written approval to import Savannah cats into Australia at that time; not a clever idea.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/couple-seek-2m-for-banned-cat/2008/08/04/1217701902008.html
Jen
#1239 Says:
August 4th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
“MInd you, if the Libs manage to get a reasonably moderate leader the difference between Kevin and another conservative will be even less.
That;’s when teh Greens will come into their own ”
bullsh.it Obviousley you hav no knowledge whatsoever of difernece between Neocons and Labor As for Greens , they ar an environment Party
ron-
I did not equate labour to the Neocons – that is the Howardites. I said that Kevin is conservative, and he is.
He even says it himself if I recall.
I know you can’t bear any criticism of him, and in many ways I think he is doing a good job – and compared to JWH and his crerw , he is sensational!
However, he has let us down in relation to a number of important issues ; eg: ongoing logging of old growth forests, he is pro-uranium mining, anti gay-marriage and so on. I make no apology for supporting the Greens in these areas, and as much as I admire Kevin he fall short of the mark for me. However it’s lovely that you think he’s so perfect 😉
I think Mumble makes a good point re Cossie – “Fools! The position largely maketh the man, not vice versa, and if Peter does become opposition leader he probably won’t last until the next election. It would ruin him.”
Quite true, Jen. I think alot of people have forgotten what a joke the Ruddster was just a few short years ago. Just because he flopped into office on th back of the YR@W campaign, some seem to think he has become, dare I say, the Messiah.
“MInd you, if the Libs manage to get a reasonably moderate leader the difference between Kevin and another conservative will be even less.”
Don’t play samantics Thats what you said and its nonsense
Then you say playing further with words “I said that Kevin is conservative, and he is , and he said so’
There is a huge polical differnce between being cautous/consevative with policy as an adjective and “a consevative” which is a political idealology Either you do not understand th diference or you ar playing with words IF you want to know “a consevative” its that US snake oil salesman phony you love
after you came th typical anti Labor echo Turning , another desciple of of that oily man
Ron
I am not a member of the Greens or Labor (or any other party) but I think its incorrect to say that the Greens are only an environment party. They are much more progressive than Labor (I don’t think calling it “left” means anything any more). they have policies on a lot of issues; I recall at one stage Australian ethicist Peter Singer was involved in some way. Of course, a lot of Green voters and even members may only be motivated by one issue. But thats true in the Labor and Liberal party too.
Whatever criticisms could be fairly made of the Greens, it had to be conceded they have broadened their policy base a lot over the last few years. They are no longer a single issue party, and have not been for some time.
Just Me
…to the educated, or the general public?
I think ron’s view is pretty representative, however false it is.
Kevin Rudd is a church-going Christian (conservative in my view),who is quite progressive in some areas (indigeneous policy the most admirable), and not others – gay marriage for one.
I was meaning Turnbull when I was referring to ” another conservative” – not the Neocons like Howard..
Here are a list of teh Greens policies. You may well disagree with them but you really can’t say they don’t exist!
And as for The Other Politician who you so despise I am more than happy to discuss that in teh appropriate place which is Not Here.- you know where to find me 😀
http://greens.org.au/policies
This blog has been lacking in a detailed analysis of the opposition from a poultry farmer’s perspective. Too many apparatchiks and not enough chickens.
We have yesterday’s roosters, today’s feather dusters and lots of Chicken Littles racing around waiting for the sky to fall down because of the dreaded wall-to-wall labour governments. We have many battery hens with no initiative, just waiting to be fed and watered. The current leader is a free range chook but the chickies are not following. For a CC policy he cackled, he scratched, and he crowed, and then he laid a square egg which surprised everybody including himself. The deputy chook from the west has been taking staring lessons from White Leghorns. The treasurer has been reduced to muted cluck clucking.
And, piece the resistance, we have the capon messiah. Will he lead the flock from the wilderness into the promised land? Just imagine the flapping of wings, the cackling and the clucking! If only the capon would flap his wings, crow to the heavens, just this once! And then soar like an…
Socrates
#1263
i said “they ar an environment Party” I did not put ‘only’ in There Party (Australian Greens ) was formed as an environment Party who first won seats in 96 on envirnonment Labor already owned CC from 1991 and signed IPPCC Convention in 1992
Neither there econamic policys nor there defence policys are suitable for an Australian government , and these ar th 2 of th most fundamental policy areas Even my Enemy Marsupial possum , who i rarely agre with , thinks there econamic policys ar fantasy stuff Medicare we got that
So i made th statement of an environment Party , thats been there focus , and what there vote has been asociated with Just like th Democrats they hav ‘left’ views eg. on gay marriage , untarnium , and other social issues , which will be more ‘left’ than a mainstream Party like Labor , every Party has such ‘social’ policys even One Nation
But making Rudd ‘a consevative’ or close to th Libs if they had a consevative leader per #1239 is ill judgd at best
10 news reckon cossie is going to quit and now some libs are upset that he has destabilised Nelson.
Can the libs fall any further into dissaray?
Welcome to being in opposition
btw ron;
“Conservative:-
moderate, cautious, purposely low of views, tastes etc., avoiding extremes”
The Concise Oxford Dictionary
I think it fits Kevin to a T – and I doubt he’d have problem with it 😉
1266
Jen 1266 Says:
August 4th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
“Kevin Rudd is a church-going Christian (conservative in my view),who is quite progressive in some areas”
Thats your 3rd failed attempt Kevin rudd is not “a consevative” , and your latest attemt to dress th word up is as groundless as your fiirst 2 attempts
th fact is your statement in #1239
“MInd you, if the Libs manage to get a reasonably moderate leader the difference between Kevin and another conservative will be even less.”
has NO politcal knowledge basis whatsoever of th Libs & ALP Party diferences , after 3 goes , it was foolish
Oh ron- I forgot how upset you could get if anyone was mean about kevin.
Sorry.
This is not a criticism of anyone’s point of view but politics since the end of the cold war has changed so much that the old labels are completely obsolete, which perhaps explains the difficulties we have in discussion.
What does “conservative” mean now when we have “neo-cons” who see it as legitimate for the state to radically intervene in matters of personal rights? The phrase “left wing liberal” particularly irks me; its a nonsense.
I personally think that most figures in the formerly left-wing establishment party (labor) and the now extremely right wing establishment party (liberal) are extremely conservative in a psychological and attitudinal sense.
I just cannot see Cossie comes back from the dead. I think this is just one big marketing exercise to allow Cossie to sell his book. Also, in order to sell his book, he has to have some really juicy stuffs. The only juicy stuffs that will sell his book are those where he really buckets Howard, Dolly etc etc etc. Nobody will be interested in his bucketing of the Labor side. It has to be Latham’s Diary revisted.
In the Radio National this morning, both Michelle Grattan and Fran Kelly said Cossie will not come back.
Though like any self-respecting narcissist (tautology intended), he’s loving the attention!
Exactly Socrates.
my own view is that teh last election was about getting rid of extreme right-wing (neoconservatives) and replacing them witha more centrist/ less conservative Government.
a blessed relief i might add, and was absolutely delighted with the outcome.(except for Di Natale missing out on teh Vic senate seat)
That having been achieved some of the more detailed issues around social and environmental policy will now have time to come to the fore.
It is in this context, combined with teh unfortunate demise of the Dems that I see a broader Greens Party finding its place in Oz politics.
A million votes last time, in the context of an overwhelmimng desire to get rid of teh Libs was no mean feat. I think we will go further next time. I may be wrong… the voters decide in the end of course.
Sir Kevin may be bland , but your 4 th failed attempt of Oxford dictionarys to quote a definition of ‘consevative’ , shows you do not understand there is a politcal idealology Libs who ar consevatives , they ar a consevative
Oxford definition you quoted has no relationship to a politcal Party at all You Gilligans dreamy crew should stick to snake oily pollies , reely your argument is as looney as th Greens econamic policys
ok ron. settle down.
I really do think Kevin is conservtive in his views. I ALSO think he is doing a pretty good job.
However, there are issues that in my view he fails on – I have outlined them.
And that is why I support the Greens now rather than Labor as I did up until the dreaded Tampa episode.
You of course are free to disagree, but you can hold off on the insults. If oyu want to discuss the policy differences, go for it.
And if you want to bag out Obama then do it on the site that is specifically set side to discuss teh US election. I will NOT do it here.
ron you really are talking out your arse matey, its almost like you’ve got an axe to grind or something ;)… everything that was pointed out to you by jen and others was spot on
Settle down dude, your being ridiculous
Jen , keep on beliving that the greens will be a major force.
The fact is that unless the greens become a bit more realalistic they will never become a force in aus. politics.
I applaud your views but realality will win every time.
Same as the libs hopping noballs will save them.
Jen, my criticism of the Greens’ policy and talen vacuum has nothing to do with what their website says they’re about. It’s to do with the way they present themselves, their ideas and the main thrust of their energy. There is really only one Greens senator who has a more diverse interest base, that is Senator Siewert. As such, her credibility is a lot higher. She is able to speak believably on issues such as industrial relations and other issues and is even the deputy chair of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee.
Apart from that it’s a chorus of anti-nuclear activists and climate change lecturers added in with a dash of human rights activism. That’s nice to have, but they also need to be able to capture a range of issues that the average Australian understands or at least be able to present their issues in a way that makes them attractive to the mainstream.
Until then they will always be perceived as loons and extremists.
1267 Boerwar
Your report from poultry farmer’s perspective gave me a good laugh. The piece de resistance is the capon messiah. Thanks and alleluia
1279
Classified Says:
August 4th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
ron you really are talking out your arse matey
You another Green like Jen ar politcal novices , because you do not understand what a consevative is Your looney econamic policys hav been matched today
Jen,
Who are the conservatives now? Give me, mild Kevin Rudd any day over the fair weather opportunists known as Greens. More Liberal Blue if your track record is truly known. Why don’t you blog with the Bolter? He seems more your style.
16
Grace Says:
August 4th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
The Greens have announced they will preference the CLP ahead of Labor in all seats bar Port Darwin, where negotiations are ongoing. The effect of this on Saturday’s poll – limited. The effect of this on the credibility of the Greens in the NT – huge.
Can you call yourself a “Green” party when you preference the party that wants a uranium dump in Central Australia and to destroy the Daly River via land clearing for agriculture?
Socrates
#1273
There ar philosphical issues her and I think Globilsation has changed how ‘left’ mainstream Partys hav applied an econamic system to achieve there ‘left’ policy objectiives and a degree of ‘regulation’ , and it is this area of a market economy th extreme ‘left’ including Australian geens ar still bogged down in yesteryear
Keating wisely went down this course , and Howard reaped th benefit (net 400 billion in terms of trade vs Hawke/Keatings decade) , but like a true ‘consevative’ Howard/Costello “spent” th dividend of that & th mining boom on ‘conservative’ values and policys , and not keeping some debt & properly equity wise adj Tax system , building schools , infrastucture etc
These ‘consevative’ to Labor differnces ar fundamental , and furthermore under ‘consevatives’ they would prefer 100% fully private medicine (no Medicare) , 100% fully private Hospitals , no ACCC , and of course NO CC policys as they hurt big Oils & big enegy , etc etc globisation has changed th methods of how an economy needs managing & control of th means of production (cold war) leading to apparently more bland ‘left; pollies exception keating , but this has unforunately clouded perceptions that ‘consevatives’ , ‘a consevative’ ideologoy is very diferent to ‘left’ Labor values as described
“Until then they will always be perceived as loons and extremists.”
I think this is an outdated perception. The Exclusive Brethren, The HR Nicholls Society, Michael Costa and Wile E. Coyote are loons and extremists. To claim the existence at the last election of one million supporters of looniness and extremism, that’s one in thirteen voters, is not credible in my view.
1265
onimod
It is true the Greens have the problem of coming from a single issue base, and that will haunt them for a while to come.
Inner Westie I didn’t call them loons, I said they will always be perceived as loons unless they draw a wider base of members for their party (representing different ‘leftist’ ideologies than merely environmental issues).
I preference Greens above the other major parties always, but that’s because there’s a lack of any real alternative.
Can anyone identify one socially useful thing the Greens actually do? I think the last worthwhile thing was the Franklin Dam which of course was stopped by Labor.
[, but like a true ‘consevative’ Howard/Costello “spent” th dividend of that & th mining boom on ‘conservative’ values and policys , and not keeping some debt & properly equity wise adj Tax system , building schools , infrastucture etc]
But in other ways the previous Government wasn’t conservative. Conservatism is based on the belief that tradition is the best guiding principle for a social structure. Of course Conservatism can be self defeating; what if a society’s tradition involves avoiding basing decisions on tradition, then Conservatism would endorse radicalism.
But I think there is a greater problem in applying the term to the Howard Government. Can you call the last Government’s politicisation of the AFP and the Department of Immigration, and the attacks on the High Court in the aftermath of the Wik decision based on a belief in the authority of traditional institutions? Their conservatism was strategic and opportunistic, it wasn’t based around the consistent application of a philosophical idea.
[The Exclusive Brethren, The HR Nicholls Society, Michael Costa and Wile E. Coyote are loons and extremists. ]
How exactly is Michael Costa an extremist? Is it because he is no longer a Trotskyist? I think he was an extremist when he was a Trot, nowadays he is back in the mainstream, he is on the Right of the Left, which is pretty close to the Centre.
[Can anyone identify one socially useful thing the Greens actually do?]
Help elect Labor members to parliament based on preferences.
Yep: they had a central role in agitating against the Iraq war before Howard committed us to what some claim to be the biggest foreign policy catastrophe of the modern political age. That’s John Winston Howard, the bloke you voted for last November ESJ.
“How exactly is Michael Costa an extremist?”
Don’t get him started on cycling advocates. He’d have them all rounded up and sent to a gulag if it were legal / politically feasible to do so …
ShowsOn,
Actually the Greens vote is just a part of what was the SL vote of the ALP. After all your inner city Greens voter is hardly going to vote Liberal are they?
Inner Westie,
Tell me should Saddam Hussein have remained in power? What do you think?
ShowsOn, or in the case of a certain Queensland by-election in 1996, some would argue, defeating a Labor Government.
[Don’t get him started on cycling advocates. He’d have them all rounded up and sent to a gulag if it were legal / politically feasible to do so …]
I don’t think this is true. But aren’t we a mature enough country to accept disagreement? Some people like cycling, others thing it is pointless. Some people play golf, others think it is a stupid game. It is just the nature of human societies that there is disagreement, the best countries acknowledge that, then move on. Busted a*se countries fight wars over petty disagreements.
[ShowsOn, or in the case of a certain Queensland by-election in 1996, some would argue, defeating a Labor Government.]
Fair point, but I think over the years Greens preferences have elected more Labor members and Senators than those from the Coalition.
Didn’t about a dozen Labor MHRs win at the last election on Greens preferences?
[Actually the Greens vote is just a part of what was the SL vote of the ALP. After all your inner city Greens voter is hardly going to vote Liberal are they?]
Maybe. But can I remind you that one of the biggest environmental-fundamentalists in the Australian parliament is a Liberal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MqbGJVaIbY
Oh, and he can’t make a speech to save himself.
Jen’s obviously off to get her instructions from the Commisariat. “Greens have alway supported Liberal Policies”, will be the new mantra.