The Australian reports that this fortnight’s Newspoll has Labor’s lead at 54-46, down from 55-45 last time. However, Kevin Rudd’s preferred prime minister rating is up five points to 59 per cent, while Malcolm Turnbull is down one point to 25 per cent. Essential Research has Labor’s lead up from 59-41 to 61-39 in its weekly survey, which is Labor’s second successive two point increase. Also included are questions on leadership approval and attitudes to the financial crisis.
UPDATE: Graphic here. An interesting set of figures: despite going backwards on two-party, Labor’s primary vote is up three points to 44 per cent, the Greens having returned to earth from 13 per cent to 9 per cent. Kevin Rudd’s personal ratings are well up: satisfaction up nine to 65 per cent and dissatisfaction down six to 26 per cent, his best figures since May and June respectively. He’s also taken a commanding lead over Turnbull as best leader to handle the economy, up nine since September 19-21 to 50 per cent with Turnbull down eight to 35 per cent. Also included are questions on the carbon pollution reduction scheme, which over half now believe should be at least delayed.
Here’s some pub trivia to throw back at people who say “The Greens aren’t going anywhere” “They’ve hit a ceiling” etc.
It look British Labour more than 20 years to crack the 10% threshold and 30 years to replace the Liberal Party as the main opposition to the Tories.
[It look British Labour more than 20 years to crack the 10% threshold and 30 years to replace the Liberal Party as the main opposition to the Tories.]
But isn’t that like saying the Greens would need the ALP to die before they could become the opposition?
[I think the ALP has always been pretty practically minded. They were always interested in awards – pay and conditions – as well as public education – and at least initially tarrifs, rather than shutting down every business and replacing it with a state run organisation.]
There’s the reformist vs. revolutionary socialism.
ShowsOn
#688
“Ron #686 Posted Wednesday, October 29, 2008 at 10:54 pm | Permalink”
what does “core ‘left’ policys” actually mean?
Actualy my #686 was solely to do with ‘Managed Investments’ and proposed actions regarding them as an econamic point rather than a left policy I assum people from all politcal spectrums may both agree and both disgree with that Managed Investments post of suggested “Labor & Liberal Govts “encouragement” , there benefits & proposed cures
I probably should add that the electoral system only extended franchise to about 50% of the male population until the early 1900’s.
Ron, can you answer that question in a general sense?
[There’s the reformist vs. revolutionary socialism.]
OzPolitics summarises it as follows:
[…in 1913 Lenin said that the Australian Labor Party was really a (small-l) liberal bourgeois party; and the then Liberals were really conservatives. While the influence of the socialists in the party should not be under estimated, they are in a minority. The party includes a large number of radical popularists, liberals, social democrats, nationalists and Catholics who would not subscribe to socialism. The socialist objective is retained largely for tradition’s sake, and as a flexible commitment to social justice.]
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/parties/alp/
SNIP: Pain-in-the-arse comment deleted – The Management.
Wow, a measley two hours watching Wall Street and Gordon Gekko and the Laborites have descended into pathetic ad hominem. William, I trust you’ll remove the filth.
ShowsOn, please take note of the comments which have been deleted.
No 671
I much prefer Lowe.
Here’s an amazing piece of trivia that goes against the usual conventional wisdom. Wouldn’t be surprised if a similar thing occurs in Australia.
[Overall, the Dow average generated a median 33 percent advance from the time a Democrat is elected in November or elevated from the vice presidency until the next president is chosen. For Republicans, the gain is 17 percent.
“It’s ironic because most people think the market tends to do better under Republicans than Democrats, and the actual empirical evidence has been the opposite,” said Nick Sargen, chief investment officer at Fort Washington Investment Advisors in Cincinnati, which oversees $30 billion. “There’s conventional wisdom, and then there are the pure facts.”]
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=axt7Qr7cOyVo#
Interesting where Rudd and Turnbull lie. Especially given many attribute Rudd’s success to the capturing of the centre.
“Asked to position American and Australian political leaders on a scale from left to right, the respondents put Senator Obama to the left of the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, and the ALP, which were seen as being centre-left.
The Opposition Leader, Malcolm Turnbull, and Senator Obama’s vice-presidential running mate, Joe Biden, were placed at the centre, the Liberal Party at the centre-right and Senator McCain and President George Bush at the right.”
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/obama-would-get-australians-vote/2008/10/29/1224956136462.html
“Ron, can you answer that question in a general sense?”
I assumed th predominantly “progressives” or Greens on this site as well as th Liberals on this site (GP , ESJ Glen etc) understand what I mean but don’t reely accept th philosopghy as core (but instead as important at best) as there core values ar diffferent
Labor core left policys ar summed up both by th words of Chifleys “lite on th hill” comments and th underlying implicit obligation & priority as core of which universal healthcare & freedom of association of employees as Unionists ar examples As a Labor person I’m defiant on them
James J was Sarah Palin left right out on the bridge to nowhere?
Looks like Sheridan has been given the job of cleaning up the mess left in the wake of the story in the Weekend Oz about Rudd & Bush’s phone call.
I wonder how many more of these beat-ups that they get found out on before they decide to revert to their proper role of actually reporting the news, not making it up or reporting nonsense from unreliable & suspect sources.
[Yesterday, in response to my inquiries, a spokesman for the Prime Minister said: “The President did not make the reported comment you refer to.” In other words, Rudd is endorsing the account of the conversation given by the Bush administration official.
It is impossible to know who leaked the original conversation. The story as reported said Rudd refused to comment on the conversation. There were advisers present during the phone call. Some people in the bureaucracy naturally have knowledge of what was said. Rudd had dinner guests who may have been privy to something.
Yesterday, the PM’s spokesman made it clear that Bush knew all about the G20.
He said: “In fact, President Bush has been deeply engaged with the G20 and the role the G20 will play in dealing with the global financial crisis. This was the topic of conversation between MrRudd and President Bush and the actual reason why Mr Rudd made the call to President Bush.” ]
And here’s the rider that attempts to give the Oz an out.
[God alone knows exactly where the truth lies in all this. Certainly it is an incontrovertible fact that Bush has frequently dealt with and talked to, as well as about, the G20. Indeed the G20 finance ministers were due to meet in Washington shortly after the Bush-Rudd conversation and Bush was involved in aspects of that meeting.
Further, according to Rudd’s statement yesterday, the whole subject of the conversation between the two leaders was the possibility of calling a G20 meeting. It is of course possible that Bush uttered some similar words to those in the original story, but in a wholly different context: as in, say, “What’s the G20 going to achieve?”, or some such formulation. Or it may be that Bush simply misheard and said: “What’s that?” ]
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24572800-5013460,00.html
This publication continues to slide deeper and deeper into the slime.
No 712
JJ, you’ve tampered with the space-time continuum on poll bludger with that comment. Turnbull more central than Rudd….it can’t be. Put your flame suit on!
No 715
They reported information from their sources like any other journalist. Heaven forbid, Adam spend two posts giving us a lesson in journalism…weren’t you listening? 😉
[Certainly it is an incontrovertible fact that Bush has frequently dealt with and talked to, as well as about, the G20. Indeed the G20 finance ministers were due to meet in Washington shortly after the Bush-Rudd conversation and Bush was involved in aspects of that meeting.]
If it was such an “incontrovertible fact”, therefore widely known, then it stands to reason that an agency such as the Oz would have been more than aware of the fact.
The only explanation can be that it was a cheap shot designed to damage Rudd but the ramifications of it were poorly thought out at best.
Things like this can cause diplomatic difficulties with potentially wide ranging ramifications. The White House certainly jumped on it quickly. The Oz must have assumed that it would remain a “domestic” issue and that the Bush Administration wouldn’t notice.
This “rag” is trying to make us all look like idiotic fools. Time to smarten yourselves up people.
Interesting point here about 400 000 investors in a US frozen fund.
[It is one of eight cases pending against the fund company, including one that accuses the fund management of tipping off big investors before the Primary Fund broke the buck so they could get out in time — an allegation the fund has denied.]
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/29/business/29fund.html?ref=business
SNIP: Abusive comment deleted – The Management.
Steve, you can be sure that it is a wide-ranging practice. They always look after their mates.
Socrates,it certainly was a problem in 2001 when the smarties got out of an AMP fund early and left the fund with no money to trade its way out of trouble. The fund was eventually closed down. The Liberals in government just shrugged their shoulders and did nothing as usual.
Well do nothing is not quite accurate. They diverted attention to the Tampa.
Mal Brough still thinks he’s the Minister for Indigenous Affairs.
[Mal Brough, who led the intervention into Northern Territory Aboriginal communities under the Howard government, says similar action is needed in Western Australia’s Kimberley region.
The former minister for Indigenous affairs has made the comments following the arrest this week of five people accused of more than 40 cases of child rape in remote Kimberley communities.
Mr Brough says it is a disgrace that the Western Australian Government continues to allow people to live in communities where alcohol abuse, disease, violence and child sex abuse are rife.
He has accused successive State Governments of ignoring the Kimberley region.
“If this was Perth and we had people living in the disgraceful unhygienic conditions, the Government of the day, regardless of their persuasion, federal or state, the Government would act,” he said.
“But because they’re in remote communities we somehow don’t.”
“They are atrocities. We wouldn’t allow it to occur in the main streets of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane or Perth, why the hell do we let it occur in the East Kimberleys?”]
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/30/2405092.htm
No 722
Oh quiet steve. You’re always talking nonsense. The Liberals introduced the prudential regulation that has stopped our local financial system from collapsing, a fact you’re only too quick to forget when it suits you.
No 724
Brough is not saying anything uncontroversial. He’s absolutely right. Indeed, it is a shame that he lost his seat. I hope he runs again in 2010.
SNIP: Unconstructive comment deleted – The Management.
No 727
bob, the state of Aboriginal Affairs in WA is disgraceful. Hopefully Barnett does something about it.
If it wasn’t for the continued existence of the Liberal party The Australian would have no reason to be.
The Australian is an excellent paper, even will excel even higher when Dennis Shanahan is sacked.
[The Australian is an excellent paper]
I agree 100%. Nothing is better for lining my cat’s litter box.
Shame Dario.
Though to be honest, I prefer reading the Economist than any Australian newspaper.
GP
With ‘oz’ , I do enjoy George Megalogenos even when i disagree with him and don’t mind Dennis Atkins, and Paul Kelly I’m surprised you’re not keen on michelle Grattan as I rate her highley and over th yesrs she’s been very cutting about th Labor Party as well as th Liberral Party but usualy find her critisisms hav soundness , ditto Tony Jones & Laurie Oakes
I’m realize many rusted ons in both Labor & Liberal just love Philip Adams and Andrew Bolte but over parisan writers like them I blink as I turn th page on thems
Bolt is intolerable most of the time, much like Philip Adams. Bolt turns Insiders into high camp, especially when it’s the double wammy with David Marr.
734, GP:
[Bolt turns Insiders into high camp…]
I’ll see your Bolt and raise you an Akerman.
Scorpio @ 302, i’m just catching up on the posts, i went away for a few days to escape the media and get grounded again, i’ll be catching up reading all posts today, yes i’m pleased about the reward, the police have worked their hearts out on “the family”,yesterday Rann went on the Today show about it as well, a lot of people have forgotten the horrific details that came out in the 11 years of inquests and court cases, those boys were systemetically tortured before they were killed from massive blood loss, Von Einam was an accountant but he posed as a surgeon and carried a bag of surgeon’s instraments with him, he used those instraments to operate on and torture those poor boys, he cut out parts of their bodies while they were still alive and roughly stitched them up, some police believe as i do that even after V E was convicted there has been elements V E’s group still at work though obviously not as often, theres been a couple of lads disappeared since and maybe some street kids who would never be missed, my journo pal will be writing an article in this weeks Sunday Mail again, it’ll be very factual, he’s lived this case with us every step of the way ever since he was a cub reporter, both the police and i trust him not to go for sensationalisation.
as my son puts it– imagine your very worse nightmares–thats our reality–you couldnt even begin to imagine our nightmares, that goes also for the surviving parents of the boys.
Generic Person @ 725 –
The Liberals introduced the prudential regulation that has stopped our local financial system from collapsing, a fact you’re only too quick to forget when it suits you.
You might be surprised to learn that we didn’t have a ‘Wild West’ financial system before the Wallis inquiry, GP, but one that was just as highly regulated, possibly even more so.
The main difference now is that now most prudential regulation is the responsibility of one entity, APRA, rather than a number of separate agencies. While this may have introduced efficiencies, having a single agency may also have a negative effect. Regulators tend to end up favouring the regulated and there is an argument that spreading regulation over a number of agencies can reduce this effect because of competition between them.
725 “Oh quiet steve. You’re always talking nonsense. The Liberals introduced the prudential regulation that has stopped our local financial system from collapsing, a fact you’re only too quick to forget when it suits you.”
Funny thing is GP that those reforms were in place before the 9/11 sharemarket falls of 2001 and did the accounts get frozen or were guarantees offered by the Liberals while their mates were busy withdrawing all the cash out of the funds?
http://www.apra.gov.au/Speeches/00_05.cfm?RenderForPrint=1
For politics The Australian is the best. I can’t see what’s better these days.
Opinion piece by Greg Sheridan in today’s The Australian contains the following rather provocative lines:
“Coonan is a nice woman but she is the shadow minister who casts no shadow. In her time as foreign affairs spokeswoman, so far she has put out four press releases on foreign policy matters, plus two on Britt Lapthorne. Is there nothing in the great wide world that interests the Liberals?
Combined with the revelation that most Opposition front benchers don’t write and, it seems, barely read book chapters, allegedly about political ideas, that appear under their names, it suggests a Liberal Party bereft of any meaningful political culture.”
Pretty strong words from someone who often appears more inclined to the conservative side of politics.
On the EMS, the economic myths have just been exploded. Treasury modelling finds early action on climate change will save money, and create 700,000 jobs.
We can’t afford not to do it. So Turnbull and the Libs, and the denialists, (aka the “coal-eating surrender monkeys” 🙂 ) – can be safely ignored as ‘economically irresponsible’.
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/act-fast-on-emissions-swan-20081029-5bgv.html
lefty e
I don’t think the reality of cliamte change is that simple – there will be some areas that will gain jobs from ETS, some that will lose them. But overall, yes there will be a net gain. Many of the areas of high emissions are actually very low employment industries – eg aluminium smelting.
I also think the new Infrastructure Australia package could help in both employment and emissions outcomes if it targetted things like public transport, alternative energy or reductions in irrigation water losses.
Dario 731
Xanthippe and I love our cats too much for them to have to look down on that. Its usually the leftover bits of the SMH sports or business sections for lining our litter trays.
SNIP: Whinge deleted – The Management.
Thats right Socrates – and thats the point: the economy will be transformed to some degree. Those who invest early will do better. Opposition is about entrenched interests who stand to lose, because their time is about up – not ‘economic good sense’ more broadly.
If we sat around listening to entrenched interests moan we’d still have steam trains, horse drawn plows, and hand typesetters .
Steve
Fair point but the 2001 AMP case still doesn’t justify guaranteeing these funds – that suggests a need for tighter regulation, which contrary to GP DIDN’T get introduced by Howard. There was a self-regulating industry code introduced, which sounds good till you check who enforces it…
Left e 745
True – we’d still be subsidising people to cut down valuable native hardwoods to turn into low value export pulp, farm hopelessly unviable parts of the Murray Darling basin, or graze sheep north of the Goyder line. Hmmm….
Socrates, I just find the argument from the Liberals wanting a guarantee on these market based funds breathtaking because when given the opportunity while in Government their response was to not do that.
Judith Barnes @ 736,
Judy the levels of depravity reached by some of your fellow citizens in your fair city are incomprehensible to the majority of the rest of us.
Myself and my family feel great sympathy for you and your family and hope that these depraved individuals can be extracted out of your community for good.
Adelaide is a great place and would be improved immensely if these creatures, (certainly not people) can be caught and put away for ever.
Steve
Precisely – thats why I posted yesterday a link to the Treasury paper on self-regulation under tip from earlier this decade. They always left it to the market, losers be damned. (Except when that company run by Howard’s brother collapsed.)
I could go on with a lot more embarrassing details on Liberal financial governance. Does anyone remember the inquiry into the collapse of HIH? It exposed that APRA was absolutely hopeless; many senior bureaucrats in it didn’t even understand the insurance industry.