Perhaps to mark the first anniversary of the Rudd government, The Australian has come good a day early with the latest Newspoll. It finds Labor’s two-party lead steady on 55-45, from primary votes of 42 per cent for Labor (down two) and 38 per cent for the Coalition (steady). The Prime Minister’s personal ratings are his best since early May: his approval is up two points to 67 per cent, while his disapproval is down one point to 20 per cent. Rudd’s lead over Malcolm Turnbull as preferred prime minister is up two points to 42 per cent. However, 56 per cent of respondents said they would be “concerned” if the budget went into deficit.
UPDATE: Graphic here.
UPDATE 2: Essential Research has Labor’s lead at 56-44, up from 55-45 last week. Also included are leadership approval and preferred prime minister ratings and, interestingly, retrospective evaluation of John Howard, whose prime ministership is rated above average by 47 per cent of respondents and below average by 24 per cent.
Wonder if the Australian Government is considering tax cuts as a form of financial stimulus?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/business/worldbusiness/24euro.html?ref=worldbusiness
[2001 electon was decided on boat people issue Voters supported Howard to win so that is pnly poll that counts]
Last time I checked Labor got more than 10% in that election.
Plus it was a push question anyway. What if the question was: “Do you think the Australian Government should break international conventions, laws and treaties?” Would 90% of people say yes to that?
If anyone is bored, free to add more votes to these links:
http://legacyrecordings.uservoice.com/pages/general/suggestions/76713
http://legacyrecordings.uservoice.com/pages/general/suggestions/76711
http://legacyrecordings.uservoice.com/pages/general/suggestions/76741
[Wonder if the Australian Government is considering tax cuts as a form of financial stimulus?]
I bet the Liberals are. That’s their answer to everything.
Generic Person
Howard’s gone.
Bush is about to go
Blair’s gone
Can’t even remember the name of the guy in Spain.
That is pretty much what I wanted GP.
Oh perhaps for the Liberal part to face reality and move on, but that isn’t going to happen. I’ve got used to the idea, that I am politically homeless, but that is not as sad as those banging on about the complete and utter failure that destroyed the liberal party.
No 252
The problem is ShowsOn, is that you cannot accept that the majority of Australians approved of Howard’s policy of stemming the tide of boat people.
“Last time I checked Labor got more than 10% in that election.(2001) ”
There is only one ting worse than a CC denier , a partisan supporter who does not realize Howard actualy won 2001 electon ….and won it on th broad national security “boat people” issue
Better to deeal with Labors policy error then , and address my #245 questons
Ron, agree 100%.
Ron, why is that you’re the only rational Labor supporter here?
[The problem is ShowsOn, is that you cannot accept that the majority of Australians approved of Howard’s policy of stemming the tide of boat people.]
Learn the difference between majoritarianism and democracy.
[a partisan supporter who does not realize Howard actualy won 2001 electon]
Where did I write that Howard didn’t win the 2001 election?
[Ron, why is that you’re the only rational Labor supporter here?]
LOL! 😀
No 259
ShowsOn, accept the fact that Beazley lost the 2001 election.
ER must have changed something about their polls, the last two are now in the ball park of the others. 56/44 seems about right and would show the strengthening credentials of Rudd the polls are showing.
Turnbull is exactly like Palin in that he lacks competence, is arrogant, will say anything and, is totally oblivious to the fact of this inability. Palin and Turnbull are dumb in so many ways but actually don’t know it.
This would explain Turnbull’s unbelievable level of arrogance. He mistakes arrogance (supreme belief in own importance) for ability, in fact he is now using arrogance in the place of ability. This type of incompetence would explain his previous abysmal performance at GS.
It is amazing that just being made leader of a failing bedraggled Opposition has let lose the Turnbull arrogance monster, just imagine if he had the top job. He would think he was king of Australia.
At least Keating’s arrogance which was acerbic offhandedness possessed a greater degree of ability to balance it out. Turnbull’s arrogance has no foundation in reality and is simply pompousness. It really is slippery Barristers talking with Turnbull and you can understand the comment of one senior bank executive that you always ‘felt a bit dirty after dealing with Turnbull’.
I want to know why Rudd’s indiscreet comments about Bush, and Turnbull’s enthusiastic exploitation of them, didn’t affect the polls either way. I, myself, would have expected them to.
I actually expected Turnbull’s ratings to go down. Nobody in Aus likes Bush. Most Australians would have understood Rudd making jokes about him at dinner parties (after all, most of us do too). And Turnbull’s protestations that the issue was damaging relations with the US were a bit funny, given that he was the only one keeping the issue alive.
fredn, many of us have become used to being politically homeless. It doesn’t apply anymore. See “the Piping Shrike”.
[ShowsOn, accept the fact that Beazley lost the 2001 election.]
Where did I write that Howard didn’t win the 2001 election?
Umm, Generic Person, has it occurred to you it might be time to dissemble and lose the Republican brand s your gravitar?
Gee the neocons don’t miss a chance. Wonder if the Libs here will push the same idea.
[
The answer is, eliminate the capital gains tax. Now, what was the question?
John Boehner:
“If we’re really serious about creating jobs, what we ought to do is, we ought to eliminate the capital gains tax for the next two years on any equities that are purchased,” he said. He argued that cutting the corporate income tax would help boost employment.
This brings back a memory: on Sept. 13, 2001, I got frantic calls from staffers on Capitol Hill. They informed me that Republican leaders in the House were trying to use the terrorist attack to ram through, you guessed it, a cut in the capital gains tax.]
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/
[Umm, Generic Person, has it occurred to you it might be time to dissemble and lose the Republican brand s your gravitar?]
No I think it is good, it warns those new to this blog not to expect much more from him other than “TAXES ARE STEALING! M’KAY”
Sorry that was meant to be the Republican brand as your gravitar. Maybe it’s the glasses?
Well, Im not afraid of credit where credit’s due. So far I credit the Howard govt on:
1. Gun laws, good. 8/10
2. Pass marks for East Timor (Oz public deserves lion’s share for policy shift and prompting INTERFET in 99, but govt and army did well organising it at short notice – once they finally stopped poo-pooing the idea of leading a PKF with the Yanks, and started asking for US support instead, ie as late as September ’99) 6.5/10
3. Full marks for destroying the Australian Democratic. 10/10, excellent work.
Damn it, hate it when I mistype the punch line.
That was:
“3. Full marks for destroying the Australian Democrats. 10/10, excellent work!”
[Well, Im not afraid of credit where credit’s due. So far I credit the Howard govt on:]
Giving Indonesia $1 billion of aid after the tsunami.
Of course the standard Liberal hack would probably oppose such humanitarian charity.
ShowsOn the US Republican love taxes! How else would they bail out the banks, after they’ve enjoyed a little much “free trade” at the taxpayer’s expense? Not to mention the billions and billions in agricultural subsidies, that are making it harder and harder for our farmers to make a living.
We’re not up to that bit Showson, but I’m sure it would make the list…
PS Oh , and all the rest was shite!
I can’t, just can’t credit the Howard government with anything really. Anything they did was for votes, mostly driven by the creature from Kirribilli. The only government I’ve ever known of equal turptitude is that of Joh in Q’LD.. Bad bad man with many others besides him.
ShowsOn
#251
Ron “2001 electon was decided on boat people issue Voters supported Howard to win so that is pnly poll that counts
ShowsOn: “Last time I checked Labor got more than 10% in THAT (2001) election”
Ron #255
“There is only one ting worse than a CC denier , a partisan supporter who does not realize Howard actualy won 2001 electon ….and won it on th broad national security “boat people” issue”
Now ShowsOn , you reely pedanticaly threw an irrelevant 10?% figure into your #251 to camoflage my point Howard DID win th 2001 electon, so saying Labor got more than 10% in that 2001 electon was not even disengenuous , pretty ordinary reely , Howard won electon , its called democracy….and Howard DID win that electon on th broad national security “boat people” issue” , ddeal with reality policy
Since then you’ve quoted only PART of my abov quote Unlike you I accept both th reality that John Howard principal had majority community support and so sensibly it would , and that Labors “efective” non policy on a National Security issue was a bad policy error , and you not seem to grasp voters sensibly thought so as well ….and most damaging of all based on Polls by far more than th majority votes John howard actualy got ….no Party is perfect you may learn
HSO, you are being intellectually dishonest by refusing to give some credit to Howard. Mindless hackery is boring.
[Now ShowsOn , you reely pedanticaly threw an irrelevant 10?% figure into your #251 to camoflage my point Howard DID win th 2001 electon]
Um, no. This is how I got 10%
I started off with 100%, I subtracted 90%, which left me with 10%.
I then compared and contrasted this with the percentage of the vote that Labor received at the 2001 election, and I noted that they received substantially more than 10%.
I then pointed this FACT out in a post.
[Howard won electon , its called democracy….and Howard DID win that electon on th broad national security “boat people” issue” , ddeal with reality policy]
Where did I write that Howard didn’t win the 2001 election?
SNIP: Abuse deleted – The Management.
[Howard won electon , its called democracy….and Howard DID win that electon on th broad national security “boat people” issue” , ddeal with reality policy]
Which made it impossible for Beazley to oppose Howard’s response, lest being accused of “supporting Osama Bin Laden”, especially in regards of 9/11 which cemented Howard’s victory and in fact gave him a bigger majority because of threat of terrorism.
Hello Generic Person. If you live in Melbourne, which I suspect you do, William has my permission to give you my personal contact details. I’m willing to give you an up close and personal about the sad, the bad and the dysfunctional. You want to accuse me of being dishonest? What about you get off your bottom and stop accusing me of hackery. What about you start acknowledging others’ peoples’ opinions as equally valid as your own?
ShowsOn
Th KO was delivered to your argument 2 posts ago , you ar now posting from dazed memory
Your #275 “explaining” how you mathematicaly arrived at th psephological “expert” opinion that “Labor got more than 10% of th vote in 2001 electon” will amaze Antony Green , with shock
By way , using your maths , Howard got more than 10% of th vote in 2007 electon
Amazing ting is is that Howard won 2001 electon , AND Rudd won th 2007 electon….with amjority 2PP votes ….abit more relevant would hav thought
FRANK
“Which made it impossible for Beazley to oppose Howard’s response”
Unfortunateley Kim Beasley equivocated , bad policy error and voters saw that , should hav been clever on policy
[Your #275 “explaining” how you mathematicaly arrived at th psephological “expert” opinion that “Labor got more than 10% of th vote in 2001 electon” will amaze Antony Green , with shock]
Have you worked it out yet though? Because these replies suggest otherwise.
SNIP: Abuse deleted – The Management.
[Amazing ting is is that Howard won 2001 electon ]
Where did I write that Howard didn’t win the 2001 election?
[AND Rudd won th 2007 electon]
Where did I write otherwise?
The first time you ever replied to one of my posts you attacked me while agreeing with what I wrote! Your replies to my posts tonight demonstrate that your comprehension skills haven’t improved much since then.
[Unfortunateley Kim Beasley equivocated , bad policy error and voters saw that , should hav been clever on policy]
I know, but he really had no choice, the media would’ve had a field day crucifying him and if you recall, ANYONE who dared criticised Bush or Howard on their handling of 9/11 were immediatly branded “Terrorist Sympathisers” and Un American/Australian – so it was a case of damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
[ANYONE who dared criticised Bush or Howard on their handling of 9/11 were immediatly branded “Terrorist Sympathisers” ]
“You’re either with us, or you’re against us.”
[“You’re either with us, or you’re against us.”]
Exactly my point, it was the Iraq War which prompted me to join the ALP, plus Howard’s Welfare To Work policy, which as a person with a disablity was extremely demeaning and was not the way to encourage workplace participation.
[William can you please unlock my moderated post @211?]
Sure! Apologies to Defamed Raw Prawn for not clearing his/her comments sooner – now that you’ve had one comment cleared, future comments will appear instantaneously.
[William, are you doing it on purpose?]
Huh?
Which Iraq war, Frank?
Do you mean to say you had a conversion on the road to Damascus (well, in that general direction, anyway) only as late as 2001-2002? An old diehard Labor man like you?
Porca la miseria, non lo credo!
It was a joke, William.
On two occasions the moderation process made it seem GP was arguing with, or insulting, himself by referring to people by number, as is his wont,and thereby referring to his own post.
It was funny at the time.
ShowsOn
I made a post in #256 clearly stating howard won 2001 electon and won it on th broad national security boat people issue
In doing so i also exposed th absurdity irrelevance of your #252 post saying “Labor won more than 10% of 2001 vote Howard won majority 2PP vote fullstop so whether Labor got more thn 10% is irrelevant , deel with it”
Since then you hav made numerous blogs trying to extricate yourself from this irrelevant 10% comment , and ar convincing no one of its relevance , perhps not even yourself When you go backwards in a debate you seem to accelerate with each post
Voters in 2001 wanted a national security boat people policy , Howard broadly refelcted what voters wanted and won electon , and Labor equivcoated , poor Labor policy response and lost
[Which Iraq war, Frank?
Do you mean to say you had a conversion on the road to Damascus (well, in that general direction, anyway) only as late as 2001-2002? An old diehard Labor man like you?
Porca la miseria, non lo credo!]
I’ve always been an ALP supporter, but never got around to joining up till 2002.
Bit of trivia, my Brother in Law, Simon Keely stood for the federal Seat of Forrest in 1990, while his Brother Christopher stood in Tangney at the same Election, their older brother is former WA State School Teachers Union President Mike Keely.
#288: Gotcha.
I believe Nelson may have suspected that Turnbull’s extreme arrogance would get out of control and shoot both himself and his party in the foot and grate many of those on his own side. I get the feeling that there are numbers of his own people only just able to stop themselves from barfing.
Frank
“I know, but he really had no choice”
Yes he did I tink What Beasley’s unsaid message was efectively saying (unacceptably) to vast majority of voters was any number of boat people could come , and th fear was th trickle may increase (and may hav for all we know) , now Bealey did that by equivocation of not offering a coherent end to boats coming solution , and not through a 9/11 connection at all Later Howard joined those dots that Beasley left open by a poor policy response to actual boat people issue itself
Fair enough Frank.
On my part I was politically indifferent until the dismissal of the Whitlam Government in 1975, and the affront to democracy that it was pushed me firmly pro Labor, or perhaps more correctly, anti Liberal. Never been a party member though.
Some things you can’t forget or forgive.
[On my part I was politically indifferent until the dismissal of the Whitlam Government in 1975, and the affront to democracy that it was pushed me firmly pro Labor, or perhaps more correctly, anti Liberal.]
I was only 10 in 1975 and even then I was pretty politically aware, and that single event solidified me as a leftie, and my first political memory was Whitlam’s IT’s Time jingle – produced by legendary Festival Records A& R Manager Pat Aulton and the first time in Australian Political History that a Political Party used music to sell their Leader & Party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Aulton
I’ve always thought Barwick has been treated too genorosly by Historians
Actually Pat Co-Wrote the It’s Time Jingle with the late Paul Jones, and of course featured the who’s who of the Australian Entertainment Industry at the time.
http://www.milesago.com/industry/aulton.htm
[Actually Pat Co-Wrote the It’s Time Jingle with the late Paul Jones,]
Not to be confused with the Manfred Mann lead singer of the same name who is still with us.
Ron,
Shows On’s allusion to more than 10% voting Labor in the 2001 election was in response to GP’s quoting of a Ch.10 poll (featured on last night’s ep. of Howard Years) which had 90% of 122,000 callers approving the Government’s response to Tampa (I’m paraphrasing as I don’t recall the precise question).
The poll was meaningless, as it was one of those ring-in this number yes, that number no.
GP’s position that the Liberals won the election, and Shows On’s view that Labor’s vote was greater than 10% can thus be reconciled, as this thread has played out.
Irrespective of this “poll”, there is little doubt that the majority of Australian voters (probably somewhat fewer than 90%) approved the Howard Government’s position at the time, though many would argue that doesn’t make it right. I think the revelations on the Howard Years would only tend to increase the doubts of many people* that the reaction to Tampa was either sound or legitimate policy.
* Acknowledged that many (most?) here on both sides of the debate are rusted ons, whose pre-existing views would be confirmed by their viewing of the Howard Years.
Barwick, from memory, was a former Liberal Attorney General and High Court Judge who provided a self serving, and in my (and many notable Jurists of the time) view, spurious opinion to the Liberal Party justifying their and the then Governor General’s legally and morally indefensible actions.
Nevertheless, apart from this appalling blemish, he had a very distinguished career on the Bench.