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.
Ugh Gillard’s fair work proposal heralds much more union power. Disgraceful.
I found the discussion on Howard positives very interesting indeed, but very limited, including especially the contributions of the Howard hagiographers who post on this blog. Here are seven Howard positives. I leave considerations of motivation on the part of Howard to one side and focus on the actions and the consequences.
1. Gun control – not far enough, but a good start.
2. $1 billion to Indonesian tsunami. When your neighbour is in trouble you should get in and help. Good stuff. It was also managed better than a fair bit of overseas aid, such that a largish proportion of it actually made the changes needed by ordinary victims.
3. Rapid-fire $1billion interest-free loan to Thailand during the Asian Financial crisis. This was probably the single most successful foreign policy initiative of the Howard Government. It was very greatly appreciated by Thailand – one of our key friends in South East Asia.
4. Howard finally fixed the East Timor mess left by the incompetent Whitlam and Co. I believe critics of Howard do not give sufficient value to how very dangerous East Timor was for Australia (and for Indonesia). Retaining it was a fundamental value of the Indonesian military as well as other key players in Indonesian politics. Howard quite rightly waited for US backing, because without it we could still be involved in at least guerilla skirmishing with Indonesian or Indonesian-front units. His gaining of UN support was critical because it meant that it was possible for moderate elements within Indonesian political circles to save face in not going to war. At the worst we would have been faced with a long-term, low intensity war. Posters here need to realize that we cannot possibly ‘win’ an all-out war with Indonesia. Yes, we could destroy their air force and their navy relatively easily, but really, all Indonesia needs to do is just sit there. Such a stoush would have no clear winners on either side – and it would have generated vast foreign policy problems for at least the next generation or so. As an example, imagine that Indonesia Governements supported JI because they believed it is a way of ‘getting back’ at Australia for East Timor. Well done by Howard.
5. Introducing the GST. Imagine the Australian fiscal situation without it right now. The acid test is that no Labour government or opposition would seriously even consider removing it. They know how important it is.
6. Radically improved the efficiency in costs per container movement. Still not up to world standards, but getting there. The means were unacceptable, but the outcomes stack up (pun intended).
7. Howard’s refusal to join the US in a knee-jerk fashion, by indicating that we would not automatically join in a Taiwan Strait military fight. This is probably the most important signal of future Australian foreign policy by the Howard Government. As usual, largely missed by the MSM at the time who did not pick up on the implications. Fortunately both the US and the Chinese Governments did pick up on the signal, as intended. I believe this is important positive of the Howard Government because, as US relative power wanes, we are going to have to become a bit more sophisticated at juggling China, India, Japan and the US in our neck of the woods. Ongoing slavish adherance to any one of the big four is probably not a sensible long-term option.
William, you will be pleased to know that I nearly used the word ‘Dolly’ and also the term ‘Cat Food’ but managed to restrain myself. The new rule is going to take some of the fun out of posting here.
On a more serious note, I would appreciate your broad views on acceptable approaches to the use of the term ‘rascist’. It is a serious issue for Australian politics, with serious implications so needs to be addressed.
Boerwar @ 302 –
4. Howard finally fixed the East Timor mess left by the incompetent Whitlam and Co.</i.
Although Indonesia special forces had conducted limited operations inside ET from September onwards, Indonesia did not invade the country until 7th December 1975, nearly a month after the Dismissal, and annexed it in 1976.
Anyway, the Indonesian’s had the approval of the only party that mattered, the USA, which feared victory by the left-wing FRETILIN would lead to a Communist run ET which might limit transit of USN ships, particularly submarines, through its waters.
Labors IR policy will give Turnbull and Keenan alot of political ammo…if what the Australia said was true.
MayoFeral @340
Thanks for the clarification, I must admit I was a bit foggy on the details. I would appreciate your views about what, if anything, Whitlam could have done better while he had the chance to do so?
If anyone is suffering under the misapprehension that the 2001 election was won by Howard on the back of immigration policy, I suggest they read “Dark Victory” by Marr and Wilkinson.
Howard did the four things he was best at. Dog-whistling, wedging, lying and abusing the role of public servants. And it worked because lots of Aussies are xenophobic about “boat people”. He read the people better than Beasley, who was well and truly wedged.
And before Labor tries to make too much mileage out of it, Beasley went along with most of what Howard did. And the most pivotal public servant was Jane Halton, who is the head of Nicola Roxon’s Health Department.
I agree with Dio 307 – 2001 was dissappointing to me for two reasons – firstly Howard’s behaviour, seconldy Beasley’s weakness. He turned out to be the most substantially conservative Labor leader of his generation. Therefore he didn’t offer an alternative.
As for Halton, there are many still unanswered questions. Given recent public comments by naval officers who were effectively gagged at the time, her view of events at the time looks at best inconsistent with the view of those actually there.
[if what the Australia said was true]
Yeah, cos they have a long track record of truth telling
/sarcasm
Well they did when it comes to Rudd leaking his phone conversation to the Australian lol!
I think Rudd takes the cake for the most conservative ALP leader Socrates…but he is coupled with one of the most left wing deputy’s in a long time…
[Well they did when it comes to Rudd leaking his phone conversation to the Australian lol!]
Oh please, what utter crap
Socrates
I know it’s only a silly hypothetical question, but how would Rudd have handled the same thing if he was Beasley ❓
He was happy to avoid any economic wedges last election but he does seem to have fairly firm social views and I don’t think he would have gone along with Howard on the Tampa. He’s a very smart operator but it’s a hard one.
[but he is coupled with one of the most left wing deputy’s in a long time]
That’s not really saying anything though. I don’t know that much about our past Deputy PM’s but Australia is hardly renowned for feisty, leftist leaders.
Gillard may be part of the Labor “left” but I fail to see it in any of her, or the governments, policies.
TP back at 262 said
[Turnbull is exactly like Palin]
Which causes me to ask, if Palin can do her ‘Fargo’ interview oblivious to the fact that turkeys were being culled just behind her, what would Truffle’s ‘Fargo’ interview consist of? What obliteration would Malcolm be oblivious to as he was being interviewed? A merchant banker getting it in the neck, perhaps? The 2pp polls? Any other suggestions?
A humungous stimulus package being prepared.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/President44/story?id=6320498&page=1
Dio 312
Agree – I think Rudd is stronger than Beasley on social policy, and that has been confirmed while in government. Hence I don’t agree with Glen that Rudd is more conservative than Beasley; Beasley didn’t really stand up for a lot of traditional Labor policy, which I was quite dissappointed to see.
To answer your question, Rudd could have diplomatically pointed out our international treaty obligations, and maneuvered Howard into somehow saying that a bunch of refugees on a boat were a “threat”. Howard’s approach at the time was a very “cowboy” attitude of policy on the run, but it was never challenged.
after trawling through the net, Turnbull’s grand speech at the PC seems to have gone down with a resounding thud, the only mention i could find of it was a letter to the editor in both the Age and the Herald, both letters scathing, i’ve copied them here, he’s wasted a good chance to display what he’s got to offer with letting his egotism and self aggrandiosment get in the way.
Does Malcolm Turnbull have a problem with non-subservient women? Three female journalists asked intelligent and pertinent questions during the ABC broadcast of the proceedings of the National Press Club yesterday. One senior newspaperwoman with excellent economic credentials was scornfully dismissed by Mr Turnbull. Another was simply brushed off and the third was given a kindergarten level non-answer. This female viewer was distinctly unimpressed.
Isabelle Wharley Willoughby
Bold and the bland
AFTER watching Malcolm Turnbull’s speech at the Australian Press Club, I imagine that, short of a catastrophic political meltdown, Kevin Rudd’s Government should feel reasonable secure in its tenure.
The Leader of the Opposition, despite the head-nodding adoration of a group of “toadies”, seemed hesitant and short of fresh ideas under the scrutiny of media questions on issues from taxation and future workplace directions to climate change and alternative energy sources for Australia.
Beyond replying in a stock standard manner, saying he was waiting to see what the Government put in place before being able to respond, Turnbull came across as having more wind than bite. He appeared to be lacking the sort of future-looking freshness that this country will need.
Given the importance of having a prepared alternative government in our adversarial system, I am more shaken than stirred by this ongoing blandness.
Graeme Foley, Kew
[He {Turnbull} appeared to be lacking the sort of future-looking freshness that this country will need]
Just another Liberal in other words.
The average driver just wants their car to work and get them from A to B… what goes on under the bonnet doesn’t usually cross their minds much. When you’ve just bought a new car you just aren’t looking for another one straight away unless you bought a lemon. So far the Rudd government is not a lemon, and the voters aren’t in the market for a new car.
that’s because they havent been able to look like one given they havent made a tough decision since taking office Dario…anyway Swan is a lemon enough…
Glen, whatever reason you think is the reason for it is irrelevant, the perception of the government in voterland is the same
Roy,
[quote]Which causes me to ask, if Palin can do her ‘Fargo’ interview oblivious to the fact that turkeys were being culled just behind her, what would Truffle’s ‘Fargo’ interview consist of? What obliteration would Malcolm be oblivious to as he was being interviewed? A merchant banker getting it in the neck, perhaps? The 2pp polls? Any other suggestions?[/quote]
What about ‘An economic melt down led by Merchant Bankers’
[Ugh Gillard’s fair work proposal heralds much more union power. Disgraceful.]
So GP, it ISN’T Workchoices lite? Can have it both ways.
I missed yesterday’s QT but taped it and watched it this morning (I know, I know). The number of times the opposition questions went straight back over their heads for 6 was unbelievable. They were slaughtered.
Ugh, Workchoices gave more power to bosses without any counterbalancing power to employees – fascism!
[So GP, it ISN’T Workchoices lite?]
Don’t be too hard on GP, he’s just following Turnbull’s lead and taking both sides so that he can claim to be have been right in the end 😉
[Labors IR policy will give Turnbull and Keenan alot of political ammo…if what the Australian said was true.]
Yes Glen and that in turn will give Labor political ammo. How sweet to be able to show just how committed to Workchoices the Libs are.
By the way, Who’s Keenan?
Gary, Michael Keenan MP for Stirling and Opposition Shadow IR Minister…
QT will be his first test underfire with Gillard but there is enough to worry about with Labor’s legislation he will do a good job…but then Gillard will bring up WC and the coolaid drinkers on this blog will say how wonderful she is when she wont have allayed the fears of ‘working Australians’
WorkChoices – the gift that keeps giving! Thanks Howard, Costello, Minchin, Hockey, Bishop, Andrews, Turnbull, Abbott, Keenan etc…
Peter Fuller
#299
You make a perfectly rational obsevation of what ShowsOn “appeared” to do , ie reply to Generic Person’s quote of ABC program’s 122,000 TV poll Reality however is in what ShowsOn ACTUALY said …misrepresenting one posters comments with another posters comments to prop up his lame arguments
ShowsOn #252
Ron : “2001 electon was decided on boat people issue Voters supported Howard to win so that is pnly poll that counts” (extracted by ShowsOn from from my #246 post)
ShowsOn:
“Last time I checked Labor got more than 10% in that election.
Plus it was a push question anyway. ”
ShowsOn quotes my blog , then has no intelectualy capacity to challenge it , so instead replies with words replying to Generic Persons ‘poll’ blog….as if I’d said it or to cloud what i’ve said
Which is why for next hour after I exposed ShowsOn’s vain attempts to link his irrelevant 10% comment (which belonged to only replying to GP’s blog) to my blog that stated Howard won 2001 election by majority 2PP & why national security boat people isse (and this electon Howard win whatever Labors vote was , 10% or otherwise) Such amatuerish debating techniques ar disqualified after year 4 and diminishs this Site , but as he’s continualy misprepresented in past leaving it encourages his repetition and not lifting his game
As to your other two other broad coments boat people issue i generaly agree However whilst Push Polls have never been much good (& less so today as Partys reely ar “prepared” ready for them) , back in 2001 its value simply was to highlight there was actualy “an issue” of concern…a broad politcal hint of AN issue no more Scientific polls (later) confirmed th concern was precisely th broad policy thrust Howard took and sensibly so , and voters thought so also (vs equivocating Kim Beasley)
Those , and I note still today who tink howard did not actualy capture (coreectly) this mnational security sentiment & fear of just how many boats may arrive in future (and now we’ll neer know for sure) ar kidding themselves about commonsense of voters Voters were right Howard broadley was right Kim Beasly never coherantly responded in a national security policy sense this legitimate issue reely
When one doe not accept defeat and reely understand why you lost (probabley Turnbulls current problam I tink) , then its hard to learn and shape polcy (and politics ) how to win What has been polluted in peoples memories then & now in this issue is th politcs of it , rather than th policy issue itself in peoples minds Politics and its prosecution simply maggnified a pre existing voter issue , with children over bord an example of politcal tricks Tampa converseley becme th line in sand highlighting both th voter concern policy issue & a solution Howard was offering and acting on , with th politcs used to magnify it (with Kim Beasley just kept equivicating , and so Beasley having opening a hole his later condemnations of 9/11 lacked some credibility as well)
Most on this Site may not like reality that majority of voters suported Howard’s policy IRRESPECTVE of children over bord type incidents media presentations & politcal tricks , but tink voters were right
As a separate issue there is boat people themselves , th human tragedy th treatment th loss of life on th seas th leaving loved ones at home and how they were treated at Nahru etc but its separate to what people wanted regarding national security of ‘oz’ shores unfetterd people “arriving”
IF th argument is that th boat people should hav continued to be let come , and obviously th numbers would hav progressively grown (as there was people smuggling dolars in it) , how many could keep coming (unlimited numbers ?) and for how many years ? ….and how come they can jump queue of legitimate refugees in Darfur etc ? Beasley failed to addrss th core questons Suggest Rudd would adopt Howards broad deterrant approach including Howards bribing of indanesions & others (but probabley with more internationa diplomocy and an eye for humantarian treetment of detainees held as well) Only choise public got was an iron fist to solve probalm or a velvet glove , th latter a sure loser and rightly so
[but then Gillard will bring up WC and the coolaid drinkers on this blog will say how wonderful she is when she wont have allayed the fears of ‘working Australians’]
Firstly, the fact that I, a political junkie (I did tape and watch QT and watch it live most days) has to genuinely ask who Keenan is says a lot about Keenan and the opposition don’t you think?
Secondly, the fears of “working Australians’ have already been allayed. They removed the architects of Workchoices and don’t want them back anytime soon. The only people who will dislike this legislation are your rusted ons like yourself Glen, which shows that it is “Workchoices lite” doesn’t it. It does my heart good to hear you and people like you bleat about the changes. It shows Labor are doing their job.
“shows that it is “Workchoices lite” doesn’t it.”
Make that IS NOT “Workchoices lite” doesn’t it.”
By the way Glen remember the anti-union campaign your mob produced at the last election. Guess what, it didn’t work. Why? Because most people feared Workchoices more than they feared the unions. Nothing will change in that regard.
I recall seeing a graph (pretty sure it was published on Poll Bludger) that showed people’s fear of union power peaked in the 1970s. The Liberals showed how seriously out of touch they are with their ridiculous melodramatic union-boogy-man campaign last election. ‘Twas like a flashback to the 1950s reds-under-the-bed campaign style. Good one, Libbos.
GB – I loved the bit yesterday in QT when Malcolm T asked about shareholders having a say in executive salaries.
Julia’s immediate response was “The Poacher turning Gamekeeper”. Took me ages to stop laughing. How right she was – he poached millions from a merchant bank and now wants to be the big protector of the little bloke. Julia is one ahead of him – she must have been good in the Courtroom.
Notice the big Banks are out today telling Malcolm to back off his criticism of the Bank guarantee and to pass the bill immediately. Wonder if he will listen to them or still stick with his merchant mates.
Anyone else see that Mr Howard cost us $400,000+ in his first 9 months in retirement and that is apart from his super.
… bogey …
[Ugh Gillard’s fair work proposal heralds much more union power. Disgraceful.]
You LOST the 2007 election remember. Gillard can do whatever she wants now.
[Which is why for next hour after I exposed ShowsOn’s vain attempts to link his irrelevant 10% comment (which belonged to only replying to GP’s blog) to my blog that stated Howard won 2001 election]
Where did I write that Howard lost the 2001 election?
Gary Bruce
[I did tape and watch QT and watch it live most days]
That’s one of the saddest admissions I’ve heard in my life.
I know Dio. It’s like a bloody drug, I’m addicted. I’m not alone here though as BH has indicated above. One likes to see the Libs being caned, they deserve it.
[That’s one of the saddest admissions I’ve heard in my life.]
Nah, it would’ve been if he admitted to ALSO downloading the Podcasts:
http://www.abc.net.au/newsradio/parliament/
Gary
Did you watch QT as much when the Libs were in power? That would be the real test of a dangerously addicted political masochist.
Dio, I did but I must admit to not following it as closely when certain speakers got up. Some were good for a laugh but most were boring.
[I did]
Dr Phil! Dr Phil!! We have a live one!
[Dio, I did but I must admit to not following it as closely when certain speakers got up. Some were good for a laugh but most were boring.]
Downer was funny. Whenever he got angry he sounded like was about to cry.
Possum – LOL
Costello thought he was funny while Abbott thought he was scary and clever. Both were the opposite to what they thought they were.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/bill-to-kill-workchoices/2008/11/25/1227491522653.html
[Workplace Relations Minister Julia Gillard put WorkChoices to the sword today with the introduction of Labor’s new system of industrial relations laws.
The laws were introduced into Parliament just after lunch and will be fully operational by 2010.
Neither unions nor employers were happy with the final package, a result the Government has hailed as proof it has pandered to no group in particular.
“What we’ve done here is produce a balanced piece of legislation having heard from all sides,” Ms Gillard said this morning.
“I’m expecting that you’ll hear from some employer representatives who say that it goes too far, you’ll hear from some union representatives who say that it hasn’t gone far enough.
“What I believe is this represents a balanced approach and gives fair rights to working people.”
Whereas WorkChoices stripped the safety net underpinnming individual agreements back to five minimum conditions, Labor’s Fair Work Bill legislated 10 minimum conditions, known as National Employment Standards, for all workers.
Those earning under $100,000 are guaranteed another 10 minimum award provisions, including penalty rates. These can be bargained away but the worker must not be left worse off.
Workers earning more than $100,000 do not receive the 10 award protections and they are not covered by the unfair dismissal protections which Labor has brought back, albeit in a more limited fashion.
Elements of WorkChoices have been retained. These include a minimum reduction of half a day’s pay for industrial action outside a bargaining period. Right of entry provisions for unions have been reinstated but with strict conditions. Unions must give notice and meetings must be held outside working hours.
Secret ballots for strike action will also be retained.
All individual statutory agreements such as AWAs will be outlawed. However, a worker on an AWA who is happy with the terms and conditions can choose to stay on the AWA after it has expired.
One measure employers will not like is compulsory bargaining. Even if an employer refuses to bargain with workers, they will be forced to do so if a majority of the workers wants to bargain collectively.
The new arbitration body, Fair Work Australia, will test the level of support among workers.
The Opposition has indicated it will not put up a strong fight against the rules, given industrial relation was a key reason for its 2007 election defeat. The Coalition party room was scheduled to meet at 12.30pm to agree on a response.]
bluddy hell i couldnt watch question time before because i couldnt afford to keep replacing the smashed tellies, that speaker–now i cant even remember his name was an absolute disgrace, i even wasted my time emailing a protest to him once, but him being a Howard lackey all i got was platitudes back, the current speaker even though labor seems much more even handed–or am i biased? anyway i must admit i love seeing Julia or Lindsay in full flight.
[bluddy hell i couldnt watch question time before because i couldnt afford to keep replacing the smashed tellies, that speaker–now i cant even remember his name was an absolute disgrace,]
David Hawker, the last Speaker of the Howard Government was the worst:
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/member.asp?id=8H4
Jenkins is perhaps the best speaker the parliament has had for 20 years.