The Australian reports this fortnight’s Newspoll has Labor’s two-party lead up to 55-45 from 54-46 a fortnight ago. Kevin Rudd’s lead as preferred prime minister is up from 59-25 to 62-22. Graphic here.
Other news:
• The weekly Essential Research survey has Labor’s two-party lead down from 61-39 to 59-41. Also featured are questions on level of interest in the US election and the Rudd government’s performance on various issues, the big surprise of which is a poor rating on health – possibly a spillover from mounting disaffection with various state governments.
• The redistribution of Western Australian federal electoral boundaries has been finalised. Two changes have been made from the proposal unveiled in August. One involves nomenclature: the electorate name of Kalgoorlie has been decomissioned after a history going back to federation, with the originally proposed Kalgoorlie instead to take the name of O’Connor and O’Connor to take on the new name of Durack. The second is substantive: part of the suburb of Tapping has been moved from Moore to Cowan. My back-of-envelope calculation suggests this will boost the Liberal margin in highly marginal Cowan from 1.1 per cent to 1.3 or 1.4. Margins in other electorates remain as calculated by Antony Green.
• The Tasmanian Liberal Party hasn’t wasted any time getting its Senate preselection for the next federal election in order, and the big news is that the Right faction’s Guy Barnett has been demoted from number two in 2004 to the loseable number three. The new number two is Stephen Parry, who was elected from number three in 2004.
• Speaking of Tasmania, the ABC reports that EMRS has conducted one of its semi-regular 1000-sample state polls. No figures on voting intention are provided, but we will presumably be hearing more shortly.
325 Dario,
[
Dario
Posted Wednesday, November 12, 2008 at 5:56 pm | Permalink
This is just getting ridiculous
]
That is is … I couldn’t find a single US news source today that was even giving this story a sniff [ a nod to our WA Libs 😀 ]
The opposition need to get their collective heads out of the sand and take a check of the stories that people are really interested in …..
Julie, I heard that after Bush and Obama shook hands, Bush grabbed a hanky to clean his hand. Is that true?
Now come off it Winston not even you could be that thick. What do you think I did? When you want to get rid of a government waht does one do? Have a guess. If you’d read previous postings by me you’d know.
BH, if you’re in N.S.W. and have any influence, I ‘d suggest you wield it. There’s probably no one who’s got a good word to say for N.S.W. Labor, including the rusted ons.
No influence but only footslogger HSO. In NSW and I don’t have a good word to say about much that they are doing here. In fact they are frustrating and downright maddening. Altho I think Carmel Tebbutt could be quite good.
The Branch here is pretty good at standing up for what they see as useless and the words fly thick and fast but it is mostly for nought at the moment.
I have always been one who thought 10 years or so is enough for any Govt – especially State Govts. They can so easily get lost with developers, etc.
The last Liberal Govt. here was just as bad as this Labor one and it was heaven when they were tossed out. I don’t think Bob Carr lived up to his rhetoric and the rot started when he became bored a few years ago.
I’m hoping that Kev & Co have the nous to give us at least 10 good years.
I looked at Bernard Keanes crap today and cancelled my (free) Crikey subscription. Can read the MSM if I want tabloid crap!
Change your vote?
Centre,
It sounds like you’ve heard a garbled story from a meeting between Bush and Obama soon after BHO was elected to the Senate. It’s mentioned in Obama’s book “The Audacity of Hope”
After they’d shaken hands, GWB turned to an aide who squirted some hand sanitizer on the President’s hands, and Bush offered it to Obama, saying “Good stuff. Keeps you from getting colds.”
I suppose that people who shake lots of hands might be susceptible to germs, so that would be the objective justification for its use. It might suggest obsessiveness, but I don’t think there’s anything sinister in this tale.
352, no idea. If it helps any, I didn’t read that anywhere on the major US news sources sites that I haunt. What was your source for that information? Unless your source is reliable, I would discount the story as the stories with verifiable facts are reported with more than one source point.
ah, Centre, if what Peter says is correct (mind you, I’ve not ever heard this version either), this is “old” news and that would explain why I’ve not seen current references to this event in the news the last week or so …..
PF, I couldn’t really believe it when somebody told me. It does sound offensive. You have to wonder if that’s normal practice with some or only with Bush or only with Bush for Obama.
Still, maybe people should not shake hands or kiss for that reason!
Unless they look like Julie Collins or Palin of course 🙂
[Still, maybe people should not shake hands or kiss for that reason!
Unless they look like Julie Collins or Palin of course :)]
Is this a follow on from Bush handing Obama hand sanitizer when they met for the first time?
[“Obama!” Bush exclaimed, according to Obama’s account of the meeting in his second memoir, “The Audacity of Hope.” “Come here and meet Laura. Laura, you remember Obama. We saw him on TV during election night. Beautiful family. And that wife of yours — that’s one impressive lady.”
The two men shook hands and then, according to Obama, Bush turned to an aide, “who squirted a big dollop of hand sanitizer in the president’s hand.”
Bush then offered some to Obama, who recalled: “Not wanting to seem unhygienic, I took a squirt.”]
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/09/bush-obama-meeting-hard-feelings-hand-sanitier/
If people think the NSW Government is hopeless they should spare a thought for the hapless Liberal National Party opposition in Queensland.
This week they have adopted a couple of novel tactics.
Liberal versus National having a ding dong verbal clash over the price of a dinner.
Secondly, they have taken up using ”Little Britain” as the template for policy development; as explained in today’s hansard from the Queensland Parliament:
Ms JONES:
They cannot even agree with themselves these days. My question is to the minister for transport. Can the minister please explain to me and the people of Queensland what the Liberal National Party policy is on speed cameras? Is it clear that their policy supports the use of speed cameras to make our roads safer?
Mr MICKEL:
I will start by telling the House what our policy is. Our policy is to make sure that road safety is the No. 1 priority. Our policy is to make sure that fixed speed cameras that were introduced are there to make sure that no matter where people are driving if they are committing an offence there will be a punishment for them. Our policy is to make sure that if you are a hoon and you have been caught three times you lose your car. Our policy is one of consistency.
I have had a chance to examine the web site of the shadow minister for transport, the member for Maroochydore. Those members who have seen the program
Little Britain
will know of a character called Vicky Pollard. Vicky Pollard is one of those characters who says, ‘Yeah but no but no but yeah but.’ I had a look at the web site and there it is–’Hoon Watch’. So bad speeding is when you lower the Commodore and do a few wheelies around the place–which we oppose and apparently they do too. But if you looked on the web site in the last couple of days you will have seen, ‘Bligh government reaps speed camera windfall.’ So apparently it is bad speeding if you are in a lowered Commodore but it is okay if you are in the family sedan. What consistency is that? It is, ‘Yeah but no but yeah.’
Then the media release at paragraph 4 says, ‘Just having a camera ticking over doesn’t automatically mean the roads are safer’–so, ‘No.’ But then paragraph 6 says that the ‘opposition supported the use of speed cameras’–so, ‘Yeah.’ But let us see how we go then in paragraph 7, where it says that ‘it appears they are putting their hands in the pockets of motorists to help plug their budget black holes’–so, ‘No.’ But by paragraph 9 it says, ‘Speed cameras do have their place’–so, ‘Yeah.’ So it is, ‘Yeah but no but yeah but no but no but yeah but no but yeah.’
So if you want to look at the policy for the Liberal National Party do not bother going to the web site of the member for Maroochydore; just look up
Little Britain
. Vicky Pollard will give it to you. They do not have a policy; what they do have is a template from Vicky Pollard. The honourable member for Maroochydore, the shadow minister, used to be indecisive. Now we are not so sure!
Triton
“it seems to ACCEPTED fact that a leak of the conversation did occur…”
Accepted fact ? by whose definiton , who is deep throat , perhaps he does not even exit either PhoneGate is declassified now as termed PhoneyGate , which means th blow torch is now reversable …back onto th hoaxers alone where it belongs , because frankley voters neither believe that sort of ‘mud’ ninsense and nor would it ever affect there vote
Liberal voters and 00 ar going to hav to lift there game alot higher than PhoneyGate to stop ‘left’ people from chuckling at that absurbity , let alone be remotely worried about Rudds curent dominant politcal position
357 Winston – you’re a bloody genius son.
Does anybody know what powers the Senate has in regard to dragging up people before them to grill them on this “phonegate” BS? Can they force the PM, Mitchell, Rudd’s advisors and public servants to testify?
It is presently trendy for the MSM to simply slag off at the government no matter what it does or the issue. They are certainly not doing anything to help this country in a time of grave economic risk. They seem to want to copy each other.
None of it is to do with real journalism. Would be sad if Crikey kept going down that path of tabloid negative journalism as well. I know it seems oh so cool to be cynical and to treat the government with contempt, it shows how smart and clever you are because you too can slag the govt for no particular reason other than you can.
We have enough carping jaundice journalism wanting to criticise Rudd and Labor because….well hard to know really… he is not Liberal or not Labor enough, or simply they think it looks good. I think journalists think it makes them look like journalist if they run down the government. Yes, if Crikey does that then they would be an on-line version of Murdoch and thus a niche is still left for honesty non partisan genuine analytical journalism. Not to mention a niche for Huffington Post type site for Australia. Whoever gets that going first will corner a large section of the on-line political readership.
Harry “Snapper” Organs @ 344
The other “between the lines” message I got from Henry’s speech today, is that while he understands he has to deal with governments of both persuasions, he’s rather pleased with his job at the moment, i.e., he gets to deal with a government that actually has a clue.
Unfortunately, I spend most of today getting the run round over a warranty dispute so missed many of Henry’s responses to questions (so thanks for the heads up re the transcript at Peter Martin’s site). But I did hear him say that Treasury was fully consulted about (and in agreement with) the $6+ billion car industry package and got the distinct impression that he thought this made a nice change from the way it was under the previous regime, where we know often department heads first heard about new/changed policy at the press conference announcing it, $10 million was cheerfully handed over to charlatans against departmental advice at least once, and even a $10 billion ‘policy’ was cooked up on the back of an envelope at the tail end of a long boozy lunch.
My apologies Gary.
When you wrote “I helped them out the door and helped Kennett to get in by a very big margin if I remember correctly” I sort of assumed there was a little more to it than that. My mistake.
I think I owe you an apology too Winston. I must admit I thought you were just “having a go”.
I actually voted Liberal for the first time that election and regretted for the next 7 years.
And if Crikey and others want to get a real clue how observing that both Rudd and Obama got elected on the back of being non-negative and being positive and that the smearers got a pasting.
Might be a clue there that the public is sick of this carping, smearing, over dramatising of trivia and generally cynical approach to politics, politicians and government. Many of them are all behaving like pale versions of Rove. Now I find don’t bother with the ABC, Channel 9 never visited, or Murdoch papers and am reluctant to read Crikey because sometimes they go murdoch and really I am sick and tired of this stuff.
Would be nice to see so positive supportive journalism for a change somewhere. And to see some media adopt that approach for a change.
Tanner is good … “spivs and shonks and sharks” … LOL
I see Tanner more in the Keating style, which could put some voters off – while Swan is the nerdy treasurer who is less likely to put voters offside. Not quite the good cop bad cop routine, but it allows Tanner to deliver some `interesting’ lines at the expense of the opposition, while Swan can take the serious treasurer role.
“Does anybody know what powers the Senate has in regard to dragging up people before them to grill them on this “phoneYgate” BS?”
That would be politcal foolishness , giv th hoazx more credibility….and be guaranteed in advance of finding out zero
“I actually voted Liberal for the first time that election ”
no comment
Tanner gets to deliver the “interesting” lines because he’s got the intelligence and wit to carry it off. Not sure he’s in the Keating league but he gets noticed because it’s a pretty bland front bench – with a few obvious exceptions.
Apart from the quality of the delivery, Tanner has a good point. The coalition features an ex merchant banker as leader, and an ex lawyer to merchant banks as shadow minister for foreign affairs. They are the sort of people who created the current mess, and have no idea how to fix it.
BTW, as shadow minister for foreign affairs, why does Coonan have anything to do with attacking treasury officials anyway?
[BTW, as shadow minister for foreign affairs, why does Coonan have anything to do with attacking treasury officials anyway?]
Well, she hasn’t got a clue in her own portfolio…
While on Tanner, hilarious exchange between Libby Price (I think) on ABC radio 774 and a caller this morning. Caller was bagging Robb over his comments on Ken Henry and referred to Robb’s comments blaming Muslims for the Lindsay election stunt. Price said “Do you mean Lindsay Tanner?”. She really should know better.
[She really should know better]
Should hand back her credentials (if she ever had any) for not knowing that. Utterly pathetic.
The only reason the bright and able Tanner wasn’t made treasurer by Rudd – and one who would be able to carry the role off whereas Swan never will – is that he is in the wrong faction. Apart from Swan, look at the other types with much in common with the old DLP – the boundless talents of sparkling performers like for example S Conroy, J Fitzgibbon and J Ludwig. The inevitable result of the modern Labor faction ‘system’ is that deadheads like them are always likely to occupy key positions over the few genuinely bright minds who stay in the party knowing they are unlikely to be rewarded for their ability. People like Tanner are masochists, and the party doesn’t deserve them. If things stay the same the Federal party’s front bench will end up looking like the one in NSW, totally bereft of intelligence, wit or charm – more like a toilet seat at Central Station on a Friday night.
“I see Tanner more in the Keating style, which could put some voters off ”
see abit of ex finance Minister Senator Peter Walsh , knowledgeable and to point without frills or desire for likeability A treasurer needs a diferent politcal ‘face’ and Swan has econamic attributes , but behind scenes particularly Tanner is a great plus
So even if Tanner had numbers power , i feel he is in th right portfolio , so j/v we disagree as usual
“an ex merchant banker as leader, and an ex lawyer to merchant banks as shadow “minister for foreign affairs. They are the sort of people who created the current mess.., ”
and were happy to exploit th lack of regulation , rules and tax/ legal loopholes….so its dificult for them to understand how a market should run
366 Gary, it looks like this will be the shortest Senate Inquiry in History according to page 59 and 60 of this.
[It is not determined whether the Houses can delegate their power to conduct inquiries to a person other than their own members, although there are some old precedents in Britain for such a delegation (see also under Preparation and publication of documents, above; see also Chapter 20, Relations with the Judiciary, under The second Senate committee).
The power may be confined to inquiries into subjects in respect of which the Commonwealth Parliament has the power to legislate.
There is judicial authority for the proposition that the Chapter 2 Parliamentary Privilege Commonwealth and its agencies may not compel the giving of evidence and the production of documents except in respect of subjects within the Commonwealth’s legislative competence
(Attorney-General for the Commonwealth v Colonial Sugar Refinery Co Ltd 1912 15 CLR 182, 1913 17 CLR 644; Lockwood v the Commonwealth 1954 90 CLR 177 at 182-3), and, if the matter were litigated, the High Court might well hold that this limitation applies to the inquiry powers of Senate committees. The United States Supreme Court so held in relation to the Congress (see Quinn v US 1955 349 US 155). This would not mean that an inquiry would have to be linked with any particular legislation (cf Eastland v US Servicemen’s Fund 1975 421 US
491).
Although the question has not been adjudicated, there is probably an implicit limitation on the power of the Houses to summon witnesses in relation to members of the other House or of a house of a state or territory legislature.
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/odgers/pdf/chap02.pdf
You really have to wonder how much intelligence there is left in the Liberal party these days. While the whole financial system is going to hell in a hand basket. and nearly everyone in the world is mocking George Bush for his downright stupidity, these geniuses (or is that genii) think they can gain political mileage with a senate inquiry over leaked claims that he didn’t know what the G20 is. Most people would be thinking that’s just what we would expect of him.
Meanwhile it’s the government which is seen to be dealing with the big issues that really matter, while the opposition is just looking more and more irrelevant. . . . . . .
It won’t be the shortest inquiry in history. The inquiry into the NT Intervention bills was 3 days last year. I’d imagine it’d be the shortest select committee though.
I’d also question the value of any inquiry. It’s fairly obvious what’s happened in this situation so I doubt an inquiry would shed much light.
Darn, the inquiry was suggested by the political mastermind of Steve Fielding, rather than the Opposition. I don’t see how the Greens would support the inquiry and Xenophon has already indicated it is doubtful that he would so I don’t think it’s going to happen in any case.
On your assertion that the government ‘seems to be dealing with the big issues that matter’… that’s a lame excuse to fob off answering questions about government accountability. The government’s handling of this whole episode stinks but it’s well and truly time to move on. It’s obvious they leaked the story so there’s nothing else that can be gained from dwelling on it.
Socrates @ 375
“BTW, as shadow minister for foreign affairs, why does Coonan have anything to do with attacking treasury officials anyway?”
Coonan has Shadow responsibility for the Treasurer in the Senate, similar to how Conroy is Minister representing the Treasurer in the Senate.
Gary Bruce @ 370
Yes, the Senate can compel witnesses to appear before its committees, or even the chamber itself for questioning (the last time this happened being in regard to the Loans Affair in 1975). Committees can also compel witnesses to give answers. If the witnesses fail to appear or give evidence the Senate can determine that it should sanction the witnesses, by fine or sentence. This is rare, though and has only happened on one or two occasions (I think). The according extract from Senate Practice (Odgers) reads:
“There are no explicit legal limitations to these powers, except that a person punished for a contempt may seek judicial review of the penalty on the basis that a refusal to attend, produce documents or give evidence did not amount to an obstruction of the Senate (see Chapter 2, Parliamentary Privilege), but such an application would be unlikely to succeed. ”
I also don’t think they’ve called private individuals before (e.g. a journalist) and they can’t call members of the House (including House Ministers) or state parliaments.
Itep
Isn’t there, or wasn’t there, a lock-up in the basement of Parliament House for sentences?
Right at the time Rudd is proceeding overseas for a pivotal meeting on the world economy, the Opposition is trying to white ant our prospects of participating and exercising influence at that meeting. If anyone ever needed an example of reckless vandalism of our country’s potential well-being, this is it.
They would of course say that Rudd has already done the damage himself, but is this really true?
The facts that came out about the phone call were unremarkable – the phone call happened, it was about the G20 meeting, it was between Rudd and Bush – except for one thing, the “What’s the G20?” question, allegedly eminating from Bush. Both sides have denied this ever happened, and it seems likely that is true, as the call itself was about the G20. So all we have is a report of a phone call between two world leaders on an important matter, important to both countries and to the world.
The nub of the Opposition’s attack is therefore, “Who made up the joke about Bush not knowing what the G20 was?”. It’s not a matter of who improperly revealed secret, or confidential deatils about a secret conversation. It’s a matter of who showed disrespect to Bush, a lame-duck leader who couldn’t be less popular if he went out and bit off a puppy’s head on live television.
No matter who leaked, or more likely joked about Bush, the Opposition is prepared to diss our chances of being a player at the G20 meeting by warning other leaders not to trust Rudd. This is after their own leader, about a year and a bit ago stated that the terrorists would be praying – praying – for an Obama-Democrat victory.
The media has latched onto this in a kind of mad, irrelevant feeding frenzy. They are all crying crocodile tears about what was alleged to have happened, without care as to the consequences. It’s a mad feeding frenzy, a free-for-all… over a joke, or what may have been a joke.
The ABC seems to be the one promoting this story’s longevity the most. Whether this is because their “balance” policy obliges them to report anything the Opposition says – just because they’ve said it – or whether they are biased themselves doesn’t matter. It’s a disgrace that “refuses to deny” stories are out there doing damage. If Rudd said, “It wasn’t me,” then the next question would be “Well, who was it?”. If he said he didn’t know then we’d be reading about his office being out of control (interesting, as he’s supposed to be a “control freak”) and be subjected to even more calls for inquiries. If he said he knew but wasn’t saying, then we’d have a “cover-up” scandal. It’s lose-lose for Rudd. Best to stay mum and ride it out, let the story die.
And let the Opposition die, too. The more they run this wretched line, this reckless ruination, the worse they look in the public’s minds.
Kenneth Davidson joins the swelling ranks of those who “get it”:
[The Opposition is playing a nasty little game designed to undermine confidence in the Government and, at the same time, is prepared to run the risk of undermining consumer confidence vital to economic recovery.
…
What we don’t want is political egomaniacs prepared to undermine confidence and increase the chances of a full-blown depression on the scale of the 1930s — all to improve the Coalition’s chances of a quick return to power.]
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/off-on-a-high-horse-instead-of-a-high-road-20081112-5o0f.html
Andrew Robb is getting slaughtered.
Apparently Ken Henry pointing out that it would have been better if he hadn’t been accused of fudging the figures is an example of “Government McCarthy-ism”
Andrew Robb should resign and go to the back bench of the opposition and join TIP.
ROFL FIELDING YOU LEGEND.
“We don’t want the media to reveal their sources, what we want is the leak!!!!”
Source = leak, idiot.
“Why would anyone not support an inquiry? This is absurd”.
He keeps saying he wants to “Keep the bastards honest”. I hope FF dies like the Dems.
Apparently ABC is getting emails from viewers saying they don’t care about this “leak” nonsense. NO ONE CARES.
Ron @ 364, it’s my impression that a leak is accepted fact, but Rudd is using the false parts to argue that it’s not a leak if it’s not true.
Someone suggested earlier that a refusal to deny cannot necessarily be taken as an admission, but I can’t see any plausible reason for Rudd not to deny it if it’s complete nonsense. He’s giving the impression that:
a) He or his office did leak the conversion, and
b) He can’t deny it because someone else (presumably at The Australian) knows and would blow the whistle if he did
In all, continually refusing to deny it makes him look bad, and that’s pretty stupid if it’s not true.
BB@387
That’s my take on it as well.
If the Bush “what’s the G20?” comment didn’t occur, then allowing the rest of the conversation to be reported is hardly problematic.
And if the reporting of the apparently false Bush comments aren’t having any bearing on the Aus-US, (or any other nation for that matter) then what’s the need for an inquiry or any apology? Move along folks- nothing to see here …
Don’t worry Triton it will all have a quick death now that the Greens have torpedoed the inquiry. You won’t have to worry about it any more.
Leak or no leak the fact is it has and will do bugger all damage to anything.
The Greens won’t support the Fielding witch hunt so forget about it – it’s a dead issue i.e., D-E-A-D as in parrot.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/13/2418295.htm
ABC News Online has a contact page where you may submit concerns about bias, lack of objectivity etc. I would urge all PBludgers to take advantage of this facility to make their complaints known.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/contact/feedback.htm
While dropping links, PBludgers might like to check Mr Rudd’s page. You can contact him here, plus view videos, get on his mailing list etc.
http://kevinpm.com.au/
It’s interesting to note that the opposition aren’t sold on the senate witch hunt either as they are concerned that journalists might get called and questioned. Hmm, can’t believe that they have some in principle belief in the right of journalists to protect their sources – more likely a case that the nice back scratching arrangement between the OO and the liberal party might be unraveled in broad daylight.
[“What Senator Fielding – who is quite new in the Senate – doesn’t understand is that the Prime Minister can’t and won’t be brought before such an inquiry,” he told Alexandra Kirk on AM.]
SNAP.
Socrates # 375!!
Dare I become a political trend setter but I suspect Tanner has been reading from my post for I wrote here on PB several weeks ago that Malcolm Turnbull’s biggest weakness could turn out to be that he is a Banker! I’m cool with Tanner usaing my lines if only he would follow my policy ideas hehehe!