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?
And Rudd is being written off after only 9 months or so of government?
ESJ: Still carrying the banner for the Liberals, I see!
[ShowsOn that is essentially the relativist argument.]
Only if you define relativism as every argument that you don’t agree with!
So who should we go for next? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Zimbabwe?
Your argument risks being relativist if you can’t explain why we have gone after Iraq but not Iran, Syria, Libya et al.
Why is it that 7 years of George W Bush making “axis of evil” threats to North Korea did nothing, then when he finally finds “diplomacy” we have nuclear material coming out, and food aid going in?
Shouldn’t we learn from that experience, and perhaps apply it to Iran?
[For mine governments are bad and a good act is a good act regardless.]
Well, I was pointing out that there are lots of bad governments, and lots of potential good acts. But you haven’t actually explained the basis for deciding which good acts are worth doing, and which aren’t. Are you sure you want to adopt such an ad hoc approach to human rights?
[The world is better off without a brute like Saddam]
It would be better without the Castros, Kim Jong il, Ahmenajad, Abdullah of Saud, Robert Mugabe, et al. You STILL haven’t explained how we choose which dictators to get rid of and which ones are OK. So who’s the relativist now?
[the fault in this case was the execution, surely the CIA with 50 years of experience could organise a proper coup in a country like Iraq.]
Wars actually take place in the real world, so shouldn’t the ability to execute a war be something given a great deal of thought before actually doing it? I would like nothing more than for there to be secular democracies throughout Asia and the middle east, but I realise how much blood would have to fertalise that. So I think we (as in the liberal democracies of the world) need to pick our fights a bit more wisely in future.
[if marriage should be privatised, then surely laissez faire should apply across the board? ]
WTF? Haven’t you made a massive leap here? Just because I think Governments should fund roads doesn’t mean I think they should fund and own everything. Just because I think the governments should ban heroin doesn’t mean I think they should ban everything. Just because I think marriage should be privatised doesn’t mean I think we should privatise the judiciary. Come on, you can do better than that.
[If I should be allowed to marry whom i choose then surely I should be allowed to shoot whatever animal i choose?]
There is something lacking in this statement called logic. But you also misrepresent me; I don’t think people should be able to marry whoever they choose. I think marriage should be limited to CONSENTING ADULTS who are not brothers, sisters, or parents and their children. Brothers and sisters shouldn’t be allowed to marry because of the extremely high probability that any children they choose to have will be disabled. Same goes for parents marrying children, but also, I strongly doubt that a parent / child martial relationship could ever be based around free consent.
CONSENTING means both parties must freely agree, ADULTS means both 18 years or older. Apart from that it is no one elses business. Certainly not any religion’s, and certainly not the government’s.
[That is the point, whilst ShowsOn argues for privatisation we do collectively choose to prohibit somethings and inhibit the freedom of the citizenry.]
Where did I say we should no longer regulate some freedom!? You make far too many conclusion jumps to build a reasoned argument.
Should people be free to kill other people? NO because that infringes on another person’s human rights – to life, dignity, autonomy etc. Which is more important than removing the freedom to kill another person.
But where is the argument for stopping consenting adults from marrying each other? The ONLY arguments we get are conservative ones “it is a tradition that marriage is between a man and a woman”. To me that is a circular argument “we define marriage as the way we have previous defined marriage”. But that doesn’t make sense, because marriage has changed. People get divorced and re-marry, or people who are defactos have the same legal rights as those who have a marriage certificate.
So the idea that marriage is an institution that has never changed is rubbish. The idea that privatising marriage will mean getting rid of all other regulations on freedom – such as stopping people from killing others – is a stupid argument based on non existent reasoning.
[It’s just what one considers freedom another considers repugnant.]
In Saudi Arabia it is considered repugnant if a woman goes outside without a male chaperon. It is considered repugnant for a woman to drive a car alone. In Afghanistan girl schools are bombed because members of the Taliban considered it repugnant that some girls have the right to go to school to learn how to read and do maths.
Do you really think we should base public policy on some sections of the public finding things “repugnant”, usually on religious grounds? Shouldn’t they have to argue logically to explain why their position is valid in face of arguments to the contrary? Or are they just allowed to wave their arms in the air and say “that’s repugnant! I’m so offended by that!” Then we do whatever they say?
To flesh this out, here is some tl;dr –
I don’t support laissez faire societies because it is a utopian scheme that makes absolute freedom the most important feature of a society. This means people’s rights can be infringed in the present so long as the goal of more freedom is achieved in the longer term. It simply becomes a stupid version of utilitarianism where freedom replaces “utility” or pleasure.
The system becomes self defeating, and ends up failing to protect the rights of others, because it says that one principle “freedom” is more important than rights. Sometimes protecting rights involves limiting freedom. For example, I am not free to kill people, because that would infringe their dignity and autonomy. Perhaps you are saying that freedom trumps those rights?
All other utopian schemes like communism are flawed for the same reason. They basically say that you can boil down conflicting demands to one ultimate value (egalitarianism) which I think is just untrue. Different people value different things differently. You may value freedom the most, but someone else may prefer equality. How do you meaningfully convert equality to freedom? Or for that matter, vice versa?
Diogenes @ 1340 –
I haven’t followed Sam Newman’s latest unpleasantry
Not a Newman fan – he’d a a class A d/head who should have been allowed to exist in the obscurity he so richly deserves once his playing days ended, but in this case I believe he’s been hard done by. IMO, he just got tongue tied and what came out wasn’t quite what he intended to say. However, the aftermath could have been handled better by all concerned. But the usual suspects probably got the manufactured result they wanted.
Progressive,
And hello to you too! So your a supporter of :
Reduced industrial protections – new WorkChoices law
Maintaining free super and 50% CGT discount – tax law
Exempting petrol from the ETS?
Dont you see the irony?
Umm, Eddie, the Rudd gov’t face the wonderful confluence of inherited inflation, global share market down turn, two of the four (AUS) banks exposed to the sub-prime melt-down and global credit contraction, and on top of that the bloody planet is doing nasty things, very, very nasty things in terms of global climate change. You want leadership in the face of these things? Let’s hear some policy for once, as opposed to whether or not the member for Higgins might deign to take upon himself the leadership of the Opposition, or just, as I predict, he’ll just slope off, to be the alwa
Sam Newman – what a hero.
Wonder who he’d vote for- and I bet it’s not that f@#% P@#%er Bob Brown .
Bring on the progressives.
Sorry to William for my gigantic previous post. I got totally carried away in stupid ESJ ‘arguments’.
[Exempting petrol from the ETS?]
Petrol will be in the ETS, it will just be subsidised for the first three years.
[Sam Newman – what a hero.]
Same Newman ran for Liberal pre-selection in the 1980s I believe.
Turning Worm
#1347
Playing with words doesn’t help your point Amongst th Greens suporters on this site , there ar a minority of those Greens posters , who ‘fake’ suport for Labor and Sir Kevin and ar Labor haters , but lack conviction to say so on this site One of many giveaways is th term Kevin Rudd is ‘a consevative’ ( but there hav been others used as well) You fall into that category , so does Jen , Classified , Progressive & the Judge I simply called yous out , and now yous will protest innocence of course & naturaly Coincidentley , yous suport mr oiliness as well
There ar obviously other Greens suporters here , who ar like my own friends I quoted in my #1342 quote “Unlike some Greens friends of mine who ar politcal experts & know Labor and Rudd ar not ‘a conservative” Those Greens on this site love there Party , probably think Sir Kevin is bland and cautous on policy incl economics (but then you do not understand a budget surplus of 1% GDP term) and and they may prefer him to go either quickker or more radical , but do not hate Labor and would not think he is ‘a consevative’ They ar like some of my Greens friends
ESJ,
Would suggest that signing the Kyoto Protocol and the Apology to the Aborigines were good for the soul of the nation, ETS promises to be the most substantial economic reform of our generation, initiatives like the Murray Darling takeover and the assault on indigenous health and welfare in the outback are positive steps for the nation.
Not to forget the Broadband rollout and the absoluute hit Rudd has been with our international friends and allies.
All this in an economic environment that has meant the need to get inflation under control when oil prices have moved to unprecedented levels and interest rates have been rising due to policies inherited from their predecessor.
All in all, a pretty impressive record. Some have a vested interest in talking this all down, don’t you agree Edward?
BTW Rudd and co have been in office only 8 months not a full term. I suspect Historians will look back in awe at the length and breadth of change introduced by this Labor Government in its first term. (I don’t expect you’ll be doing the writing).
ShowsOn,
On relativism – yes I agree if it was a good thing to intervene in Iraq then it must follow everywhere there is injustice – a utopian ideal still life is precious, no?
The debate between freedom and regulation is the lifeblood of politics of course. Who of course gets to determine what is logical? IME that’s usually nice soft left types who make the judgement on what is logical and sane. Hence libertarianism is a safer bet.
the always bridesmaid. What I meant to say. Bloody arthritic thumbs. BTW, Possum, you are a very satisfyingly evil marsupial.
And that aint nothing yet Judge Growler – is it tomorrow or Wed that the tax review/”set the cat amongst the pigeons” paper is released?
The meeja often talk about how everything is a test “the budget is a test for Wayne Swan”, “The ETS is a tet for Rudds conviction”, “todays meeting was a test for Nelson” blah blah blah.
The media has a test with this tax paper – it is not a paper on the governments view, but a (from all accounts) surprisingly independent paper designed to elicit discussion and community debate.
Will the headlines read “Rudd proposes X,Y,Z on tax” or will they actually read the thing and treat it for what it really is?
There’s a test.
The solution to climate change will not be some massive new government bureacracy chocked up with Labor hacks, GG.
On foreign policy, the ASIAN EU concept went down like a lead balloon.
Poor marks for this lot – barely a pass mark – will only scrap through at the next election.
Ron- howTF you turn my somewhat mild criticism of Kevvie into “Hatred” is a mystery to me. I reckon Theresa would have more of a go at him than I do.
As for being ” Greenie’ well -yep. I am want to see more progressive social plicy in this country than we have to date. And I accept that it will take time.
I aslo accept that the party I suppoort (and represent by the way – try it some time Sunshine-), is a MINOR party. We raise the issues and we influence via our perferences.
I aim to please all sorts Snapper – even the truly mischevious
It’s very sad if the tasmanian member is in hospital over Sam’s schoolboy humour.
Very sad..I hope she regains her health and humour quickly
Perhaps she could “come on” this blog when she has recovered
Ron, despite your obfuscation, I think we need to clarify your views on Ruddster’s assertion that he is an economic conservative. Especially in light of your fascination with hypocritical politicians. Your views on Ruddster’s claim of conservatism would be greatly appreciated.
Turning Worm #1368 and Jen
re read my #1359 , th answers there for Labor haters protesting inncoence afterwards I did predict
Eddie, did you happen to catch 4 Corners tonight? If so, are you on the bandwagon that says we should dig/mine the lot, or are more circumspect? Does you’re thinking reflect the thinking of the LNP?
ESJ,
Relevance deprivation for the Lib supporters has truly settled in. Here’s an allegorical song for Libs to cry themselves to sleep with.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR5aCsuGsXg
I can understand if you don’t want to comment, Ron. The hallmark of Messiahs is their infallibility.
William,
Queensland scientist Michael James hasn’t “tiptoed” around him in this Crikey blog. On the contrary, he gives it to him with both barrels for mis-quoting him and takes him to task over his interpretation of his so-called 7 graphs.
“ron” would appreciate reading this too. It’s about half way down the page. It is a pretty long rip, though.
{But the reason why it is important and why I did this was not because I am a green fanatic (as Bolt wrote in his blog) — I am not — or because I have a personal thing against Andrew Bolt (I don’t) but because he has so emphatically insisted, on his blogs and the broadcast media, that ”
“These seven graphs that should make you ask: What? Has global warming now stopped?. and “..now you can see why these graphs terrify Rudd, who has never admitted to a single fact they contain,” and more.
These statements are simply unsupported by his own graphs and he and all his commenters/readers and other media or denialists must not cite Bolt as having proven anything, other than that he has no idea of how to interpret graphical data. And that, too, is the only thing I have proven but it is the first and elemental process in understanding complex phenomena: to interpret the primary data correctly. }
http://www.crikey.com.au/Comments/20080730-Comments-corrections-clarifications-and-cckups.html
HSO 1370
1. Nope
2. N/A
3. Don’t know
I’m not entirely sure how that follows on from my comment, Scorpio, which was a response to those on this site who have taken to calling Bolt “he who must not be named” – as if I ever said any such thing.
Turning Worm #1372 , both th economics explanation & your Labor hating base were explained in #1359 Suppose you were waiting for a dreamy speech by your oiliness phoney , not here I cann’t help your lack of understanding finance
Edward StJohn 1364 Says:
“The solution to climate change will not be some massive new government bureacracy chocked up with Labor hacks”
ESJ , unless you now suport rons solar farms , then I thought you agreed to wait for th Whiite Paper before being naughty Also , th main staff will be in emmissions output complianse , for a ‘clean’ air
Diogenes, shelled out $40 for NIgel Lawson, An Appeal to Reason: A cool look at Global Warming.
Heard any reviews?
True ron, that part (massive Labor hack bureacracy) was a prediction which may not come to pass. The portents are not good though.
ShowsOn @ 1352,
Crikey, when’s the “hard cover” version of that post coming out?
Poss, fear and loathing, without the chemical enhancements, from my P.O.V. Nevertheless, vast amounts of entertainment as well. Have very much enjoyed your own site, as well as William’s. You blokes have added much to the understanding and analysis of the political landscape. Not to mention the thoughtful contribution of many posters.
William,
I just thought that it provided a good lead-in to the post.
Can’t waste any good opportunities when they present themselves can one?
[On relativism – yes I agree if it was a good thing to intervene in Iraq then it must follow everywhere there is injustice]
But we agree that invading every single bad country at the same time probably isn’t a feasible, or a desirable way of achieving justice? We need to be a bit more realistic, and a bit more pragmatic if we want liberty and democracy to ultimately win wide support?
[a utopian ideal still life is precious, no?]
Um, I think HUMAN life is generally precious. But it depends, would you consider the life of someone in the process of attempting to murder you precious?
Of course Christian theology tries to convince that all life is precious, but I don’t think that anthrax, golden staph, or STDs are “precious”.
I don’t think it is “utopian” at all to defend human rights because that implies it is something that will hopefully attained one day. I think that HUMAN life in GENERAL as a CONCEPT is something that should be protected and defended, and that humans have universal rights that things like fish and anthrax don’t have.
[The debate between freedom and regulation is the lifeblood of politics of course. ]
I think in liberal democracies the central debate is between positive and negative liberty – the freedom to be left alone by the State, and the right to be provided with access to resources by the State to achieve ones full potential, so that everyone can utilise their rights, including freedom.
I think that’s a bit more complicated than simply saying there is “freedom” and “regulation”. For example, it may require significant State regulation to ensure poor people have access to schools and universities so they can utilise their rights (including freedom) sometime in the future. Should a government regulate clean water standards to ensure when people fish or drink they won’t die? So in that case, shouldn’t you support regulation now to achieve greater freedom sometime later?
[Hence libertarianism is a safer bet.]
But as I pointed out, libertarianism (and all other utopian political philosophies) is willing to infringe rights now to achieve freedom – and a minimal state – sometime in the future. You may say that is fine, so long as the state is eventually minimised then everything is OK, but that means you’ve allowed the infringement of rights to get there, so you have treated one group of people differently to others. This is not something I support.
In theory libertarianism has the opposite goal of Communism – state minimisation – but it STILL has some grand project hanging over the heads of the populace, and forces every person to become a means to achieving that goal, rather than each person being considered as possessing inherent rights that can not be infringed for the sake of a scheme that they may not even consent to.
The only political system that properly defends rights is liberal democracy, because it is the only system that accepts that peoples beliefs will be divergent and frequently conflict. There is no grand plan in liberal democracy, which is why it helps defend rights in the first place.
Um, I think HUMAN life is generally precious. But it depends, would you consider the life of someone in the process of attempting to murder you precious?
-Like someone said the only way you oppose the death penalty is absolutely. Furman who was the man who was spared death when the US overturned the death penalty turned out to lead a reasonable life in the end.
In theory libertarianism has the opposite goal of Communism – state minimisation – but it STILL has some grand project hanging over the heads of the populace, and forces every person to become a means to achieving that goal, rather than each person being considered as possessing inherent rights that can not be infringed for the sake of a scheme that they may not even consent to.
– Disagree, I would apply the concept of Pareto optimality, ie that in the exercise of individual freedom no one is worse off.
Nations have to bite the bullet one day with regard to an alternate to oil.
They can drag it out and make a pigsty out of the arctic and anywhere else they think they can find oil but inevitably supply will so short that the alternatives become necessity. There is a security and economic advantage in becoming economically independent of world oil supply and prices by having alternate domestic supplied energy. Better to start biting that bullet now, start paying the cost and reap the benefit later.
Scorpio
#1373
Fantastic link , thanks Scorpio Hav cut & pasted it , and especially for John of Melbourne to come back as he’ll love these quotes , and so many
repeat in case anyone missed th demolition of quack quack :
Queensland scientist Michael James writes 4/8/08
“These (Bolte) statements are simply UNsupported BY HIS OWN GRAPHS and he and all his commenters/readers and other media or denialists must not cite Bolt as having proven anything, other than that he has no idea of how to interpret graphical data. And that, too, is the only thing I have proven but it is the first and elemental process in understanding complex phenomena: to interpret the primary data correctly”
Eddie, Have a look at the 4 Corners report. It’s not tarted up. It’s pretty plainly stated. See what you make of it..
Does anyone really think that the ‘professional’ CC denialists are concerned or unaware they are misrepresenting data?
When can they be said to be lying to the public?
I would have thought about now, Thomas Paine
Thomas Paine @ 1385 :
Exactly right. The sooner we start investing in emission, pollution free, renewable forms of energy the better off we will be in so many ways.
It would certainly make a huge difference to the balance of trade. Better the money stays here than going offshore.
ESJ
#1379
You answered th 2nd part , what about th solar farm grids , cost approx 31 billion , equivalent pr o rata to 74% of all US enegy needs as at 2050 ?
Also , found where you got that hypocrite description from , black & white ?
[-Like someone said the only way you oppose the death penalty is absolutely. Furman who was the man who was spared death when the US overturned the death penalty turned out to lead a reasonable life in the end.]
I oppose the death penalty universally. But that’s different from saying you can’t kill a person in self defense. And its different from saying all life is precious! LOL 😀
[- Disagree, I would apply the concept of Pareto optimality, ie that in the exercise of individual freedom no one is worse off.]
So now you are saying that the society just needs to be designed to support an economic theory as the guiding philosophy? So you’ve just change the utopian goal from freedom to economics, without getting rid of utopian goals. My same criticism stands. Any utopian system allows rights to be infringed in the service of achieving overarching social goals.
Also, this is incoherent. If there are five apples and we both want to buy three, but I buy my three first, only leaving you with two, then I have reduced your freedom, while exercising my freedom. How can you be no worse off when I didn’t allow you to do something you wanted to do? Or are you saying different people are entitled to different amounts of freedom at different times? i.e. there goes universality?
Society isn’t made up of people sealed in vacuums, the actions of one may enable or disable the ability of others to exercise their freedoms without any malicious intent, or any interference from the State.
CC and nuclear energy a central to Boston Legal tonight. Is a good thing that CC is now become common language. No one was doubting CC on the show, they were arguing if nuclear was a suitable solution.
[No one was doubting CC on the show, they were arguing if nuclear was a suitable solution.]
YES! And this is why:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
“The chances of experiencing adverse health effects from radiation are slim for both nuclear and coal-fired power plants—they’re just somewhat higher for the coal ones. “You’re talking about one chance in a billion for nuclear power plants,” Christensen says. “And it’s one in 10 million to one in a hundred million for coal plants.”
I would rather the argument be about solutions, it means we have maybe gone one step beyond the initial form of misinformation.
Of course the misinformation will evolve to whatever form it needs to ensure maximum adavantage to the fossil energy business.
“Of course the misinformation will evolve”
World wide we hav not even got through first of th Oil defenses USA & big oil influence there hav prevented Kyoto ratification
In ‘oz’ , we’ve passed that , guess they want to buy ‘time’ , plus wait for rest of world , still deny CC , quack anti CC sites & news articles , where ar replacement enegy to come from , R E will be so expensive to attract voters hip pocket , lobbying pollies etc Battle will be long as $ trillions ar involved for Exxons etc
What you hope for (solutions to be now discussed) may need to take place concurrently with fighting above
[World wide we hav not even got through first of th Oil defenses USA & big oil influence there hav prevented Kyoto ratification]
Aren’t Obama and McCain both going to ratify Kyoto, and support carbon trading?
Michelle Grattan again reporting that Cossie is going.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/costello-is-going-senior-libs-say-20080804-3pxt.html
http://www.theage.com.au/national/costello-is-going-senior-libs-say-20080804-3pxt.html
“Melbourne University Publishing Louise Adler said Mr Costello’s book was “not a revenge manual” but a “wide-ranging and deep analysis of Australia’s political culture”
LOL! Yeah as if! Here is an exclusive exctract for PollBludger:
“Everything good I did, all the rest was Howard’s fault. I have never supported labour market de-regulation in my life, WorkChoices was Howard and Abbott’s idea.”
ShowsOn 1397 Says:
[World wide we hav not even got through first of th Oil defenses USA & big oil influence there hav prevented Kyoto ratification]
“Aren’t Obama and McCain both going to ratify Kyoto, and support carbon trading?”
NO , th words support th ratification of Kyoto has NEVER come from either of there lips , despite being repeatedly questoned BOTH give slippery answers ShowsOn It is after all pretty simple to say “I support th ratifiaction of Kyoto”
IF one looks at both there written policys , those words aren’t there either BOTH intend to expand a new “GED” forum group of emmitters , which will compete with Kyoto , but without th 400 IPPCC scientists , and this rival group will “liase” with th IPPCC
Most tellingly of all , apart from Khazstan who will this year , th ONLY country now in th World who has NOT ratified Kyoto out of 182 is th USA , and it is th USA who wants to form expand a rival forum
.
(th 2 Democrats who supported Kyoto , Edwards & Clinton) lost better to worry about ‘oz’ for CC