No Morgan poll this week. Here’s some of the other mail:
• The Launceston Examiner reports that Brigadier Andrew Nikolic, veteran of numerous overseas postings and until recently the Australian Defence Force’s director-general of public affairs, has “confirmed that he is interested” in Liberal preselection for the federal seat of Bass. Also said to have his eye on the preselection is Senator Guy Barnett, who will otherwise have to settle for the slighly less appealing prospect of number three on the Liberal ticket.
• Michelle Grattan reports on a “glowing reference” for Kooyong preselection aspirant Josh Frydenberg from John Howard. Another of Frydenberg’s backers is Andrew Peacock. His principal rival, industrial relations lawyer John Pesutto, is supported by Institute of Public Affairs executive director John Roskam, who was himself sniffing the breeze before deciding not to proceed. Former Liberal president and Fraser government minister Tony Staley has given his seal of approval to Peter Jonson, a 62-year-old former Reserve Bank official known to the web at large as Henry Thornton.
• The Townsville Bulletin reports there are rumours that prodigious McDonald’s franchiser George Colbran again hopes to run for Labor in Herbert, where he narrowly failed to unseat Peter Lindsay in 2007. Colbran reportedly says he “won’t commit either way”.
• David Rood of The Age reports that John Brumby has “cleared the way” for Keilor MP George Seitz to be dumped at the next election, amid the fallout from the Ombudsman’s recent report into Brimbank City Council. The party’s administrative committee will decide this evening whether to take preselections for western suburbs seats out of the hands of local branches, in which Seitz and others remain powerful. Also affected will be Kororoit MP Marlene Kairouz, whose preselection ahead of last year’s by-election formed the backdrop of much of the shenanigans investigated by the Ombudsman, and Derrimut MP Telmo Languiller. Labor sources quoted in the article wonder why both Languiller and Western Metropolitan MLC Theo Theophanous aren’t equally being targeted along with Seitz, so it evidently should not be taken for granted that either Languiller or Kairouz are endangered.
• Taking his cue from Manmohan Singh’s assumption of the Indian prime ministership from the upper house, Malcolm Mackerras argues for an end to the convention that Australia’s party leaders must sit in the lower house, which he relates to the anachronistic presumption that it is the more democratic chamber.
• Final score from the Fremantle by-election: Carles 10,664, Tagliaferri 9,100. Margin: 3.96 per cent. I expected Labor would rein it in a little on late counting, but no.
• With the whiff of a dying government in the air, talk of electoral reform is very much in vogue in London this season, just as was when the scandal-ridden Major government was breathing its last. Conservative leader David Cameron opposes proportional representation but promises to “look seriously” at fixed terms. Health Secretary Alan Johnson – “still the favourite to lead Labour if Gordon Brown is removed from the top job“ – has suggested the government at last look seriously at the “Alternative Vote Plus” model which has been floating around since the 1998 report of the Jenkins commission, which was set up when Tony Blair came to power. It proposes a slightly watered down version of German/NZ style MMP, combining constituency members with party list members to produce a proportional result. Unlike Germany and NZ however, there would be a cap on the number of party list members which might make results less than fully proportional. The “Alternative Vote” part of the title refers to Australian-style preferential voting for the constituency seats, which the Jenkins commission appeared to be taken with as it had just helped defeat Pauline Hanson. From the Jenkins commission report, a “note of reservation by Lord Alexander”:
My colleagues also think that AV will contribute to a less confrontational style of politics because candidates will be inhibited from attacking rivals too strongly as they wish to gain their second votes. I do not see it as particularly desirable that candidates from different parties, who are different precisely because they do not agree on all issues, should be pulling their punches in order to seek approval from voters who support other parties. In any event, from my observation of Australia, which is the only single large country to use AV, their politicians tend to be, if anything, more blunt and outspoken than our own.
[a government reliant on watermellons]
If the greens are watermelons the Nats would have to be cow pats, hard crusty exterior, soft and gooey inside and full of it.
The main point of a grand coalition seems to be that the opposition members get more money being members of the govt. If they were concerned at the seriousness of the crisis they can support the govt in parliament. There is no difference between the opposition views being rejected and voted down in parliament and rejected in the party room of a grand coalition .
Also from that UK poll, 56% of voters support a change from FPP to PR.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6391226.ece
If there is a hung Parliament in Tasmania, and Labor is the largest party, they will not do a deal with either the Libs or the Greens. They will simply stay in office unless and until the Assembly votes them out. If the Governor won’t commission them on that basis they will go into opposition.
Glen, the NSDAP barely had any Reichstag representation before 1930. At the 1928 election they won 12 seats out of 491. They had no choice but to “stay out” of coalition governments because they were a group of fringe ratbags. As I’ve said to you before, what changed that situation was the Depression and the Bruning government’s disastrous response to it, which was *the same response* Turnbull is now advocating – no deficits, no debt, cut spending to keep the budget balanced. When you have a fall in revenue, cutting spending to match revenue takes you on a downward spiral to disaster. That’s what allowed the NSDAP and the KPD to win 31% of the vote between them in 1930 and 52% in 1932, rendering the Reichstag unworkable and allowing Hitler to become Chancellor. If you’re going to lecture here on German history you need to tell the whole story.
Expect some vigorous debate on this. I doubt that the Feds could impose it on Victoria anyway. Adam might know.
[But Raina MacIntyre, an infections diseases expert and a member of Australia’s Pandemic Influenza Advisory Group, said yesterday the time had come to consider more drastic steps.
“We’re at the stage now in Victoria where a blanket closure of all schools and pre-schools should be on the agenda and a decision needs to be made quickly,” Professor MacIntyre said.]
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25560154-5005962,00.html
[Met a UK govt MP this week. He was in no doubt of the situation coming up next year. He’s aware that by May next year he’ll be in opposition.]
They’re like rats trying to scurry off a sinking ship. 52 Labour MP’s (1/7 of the party) have requested a peerage.
Best chance is throw out Brown, put in Alan Johnson, put in some of the more radical reforms, accept you’re going to lose the next election but then focus on your legacy (parliamentary and electoral reform) for the next election. And if PR gets up they’d have a better chance with a Lib-Dem coalition.
Glen 146,
[
Glen
Posted Saturday, May 30, 2009 at 11:35 am | Permalink
Dio i was more thinking the Coalition would come into QT all with face masks on. sounds like a stunt Uncle Buck would possibly run with.
]
Jenkins would chuck the whole lot of ’em 😀
William, there are only 7.5 words in #156 plus a ‘grin’ and your spam filter banned it. I don’t get it …… that program must have a hangover from drinking too many alcopops last night 😀
Interesting that a report comes out today claiming that climate change kills 300,000 people a year and all the coverage is on swine flu and how the government must take drastic steps to stop it when it’s killed what, 50 people around the world?
I think the report is a bit dodgy to be honest, but poor quality studies never seem to dissuade the media when it backs up their agenda.
[They’re like rats trying to scurry off a sinking ship. 52 Labour MP’s (1/7 of the party) have requested a peerage.
Best chance is throw out Brown, put in Alan Johnson, put in some of the more radical reforms, accept you’re going to lose the next election but then focus on your legacy (parliamentary and electoral reform) for the next election. And if PR gets up they’d have a better chance with a Lib-Dem coalition.]
And just to think that when Brown took over, there was that 3 week period where everyone thought he might go to an early election!
Diogenes:
[The secondary bacterial infection which kills flu victims is normally Staph aureus. There isn’t a vaccine for it. Antibiotics work but it is often a case of SIRS which I mentioned earlier. The secondary infection triggers a cytokine storm which causes multi-organ failure which is why people still die of the flu.]
Thanks Diogenes, I didn’t know that.
However, is it the case that golden staph is far more prevalent, on average, in hospitals than in homes? I’ve heard that is the normal scenario, dragged from my garbage bag of a memory.
If so, would there be any benefit in flu victims recuperating at home rather than hospital, or is that a dumb idea?
Diogenes @ 154
then you have stories like this saying we should do nothing ans let the swine flu run it’s course
[Professor Peter Collignon from ANU’s School of Clinical Medicine says authorities should let the swine flu run its course.
“Initially, we had information from Mexico that suggested this was much more aggressive,” he said.
“It was entirely appropriate, but from what I can see from other places – particularly Los Angeles and Canada – they are treating this as normal seasonal influenza now.
“I think there would be a lot of arguments that we might go along the same way.”]
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/29/2585109.htm
Labour probably deserves to be thrown out, but I’ve been reading some articles that make a Tory government look a lot more scary than David Cameron.
Most of the likely new Tory MP’s are a bunch of socially conservative anti-environment hacks and only a tiny proportion. The opposite of the image Cameron is trying give the country.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6195107.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6182474.ece
Sort of like our situation in NSW. We hate Labor but we don’t really trust the radical elements in the Liberal Party. And while Barry has some ideas about planning laws and public transport (at least in comparison to Labor), a new influx of right-wing MP’s to go with the existing anti-environment right-wing MP’s is pretty scary.
[Most of the likely new Tory MP’s are a bunch of socially conservative anti-environment hacks and only a tiny proportion. The opposite of the image Cameron is trying give the country.]
Perhaps it will be like Rudd here? He managed to keep the middle ground by appearing my right wing that I wanted him to be. Thought he might let the ‘crazy lefties’ such as myself more oxygen. Turns out I was wrong 😀
I know nothing of UK politics, but perhaps a strong leader who recognises his political strength lies in being more centrist will actually push his party that way?
don
The problem is the term “Golden staph”, which really is just Staph aureus (aureo being gold in Latin). “Golden staph” is often used by the media to describe multiple resistant Staph aureus (MRSA) which is more common in hospitals than the community.
20% of people carry Staph aureus on their skin. It’s everywhere.
[Expect some vigorous debate on this. I doubt that the Feds could impose it on Victoria anyway. Adam might know.]
No I don’t. I think Professor Macintyre should be quarantined from Murdoch press journalists.
[I know nothing of UK politics, but perhaps a strong leader who recognises his political strength lies in being more centrist will actually push his party that way?]
Maybe, and he will have a lot of political capital given he’s just given them government after 12 year. But he may also struggle with parts of agenda that are more progressive – particularly with regards to the environment.
The Liberals in Tasmania would be best advised to do exactly what Michael Field and Labor did in Tasmania in 1996 when the Groom Liberal government lost its majority. That is to promise general support on supply and the budget for a period of one or two years, but reserve the right to oppose or amend legislation.
This example is generally forgotten as Tasmanian politics in 1996 was completely overwhelmed shortly afterwards by the Port Arthur massacre. It was well over a year before normal politics was resumed. Then in 1998 the two major parties acted to cut the size of the Parliament and call an early election.
No state has seen bigger shitfs in major party support over the last two decades than Tasmania. Between 1992 and 2002, Labor’s vote rose from 28.9% to 51.9% and the Liberal vote fell from 54.1% to 27.4%. The Green vote rose from 13.2% to 18.1%.
Those are shifts of tectonic scale compared to those in other states. I know there is a lot of criticism of the two major parties being the same, but the majority of the electorate see them as being close enough that they are prepared to vote for either. And the driving force for those major party vote shifts in Tasmania is that the majority of the electorate view the Greens as being so different that voters are prepared to vote for either of the major parties to prevent the Greens getting the balance of power.
I suspect the course of Tasmanian politics is becoming one where brief hung parliaments with the Greens holding the balance of power occur at the points in the Labor-Liberal vote shift where the gap between the two parties has not yet become so pronounced that it can produce a majority government.
It is always hard to see the course of a new political force. In 1891 the Labor Party gained the balance of power in the NSW Parliament within two months of forming and completely to its suprise. It split badly within weeks as it could not resolve internal divisions on Free Trade versus Protection. You would not have predicted at that point that Labor would be the majority NSW government in 1910. Even in 1904, when Labor became the official opposition after the last Progressive/Protectionist government was smashed at the polls by the newly former Liberal Party, you would not have predicted it would be in government six years later.
How did it do it? It set out to broaden its appeal beyond its base vote in the working class. By 1910 it was picking middle class candidate who had previously been Free Trade MPs as candidates in suburban seats it needed to win office.
Labor spent its first ten years in Parliaments trying to trade votes for concessions on policy. So did the Country Party. Once Labor found itself in the position of being an Opposition rather than a balance of power party, it had to change its view on politics. It could no longer use its numbers to bargain on policy. It now had to either stay ranting in opposition, or had to work out how to get into government.
At past Tasmanian elections, the Greens have stood a full tickets of candidates in every seat, but clearly had only one electable candidate in four seats and two in Denison. At this stage they still drive for balance of power.
I thought in 1992 that the Tasmanian Labor Party might have shriveled away and the Greens become the new opposition. Labor was saved by the Groom government’s mishandling of the Burnie Paper Mill industrial dispute, which saw Labor’s union base vote come flooding back, as was shown at the 1993 Federal election.
Maybe the next state election will change things. As I said, who would have picked in 1891 that Labor would sweep away the old political order and become part of a new order.
But until the ‘new’ parties of today are prepared to do more than just criticise the ‘old’ parties, but instead do all the hard work required broaden voter appeal and supplant the ‘old’ parties, politics will contiue as it is.
[But he may also struggle with parts of agenda that are more progressive – particularly with regards to the environment.]
It could be a godsend to Rudd (and a craptackular for the environment) if the UK backs of its targets at all.
NO government in a democracy remains in government forever. They have a life span. Some live longer than others but they come to an end. The UK government is no different and neither is the NSW government. There will be Liberal governments in the states and federally in the future here as there will be more Labor governments to come and so it goes. Time marches on. I hate to state the obvious but there you go.
Nasty choice for Rudd here. Annoy China and risk “terrorist hysteria” or snub the US. It would be pretty brave to take them.
[THE US has made a new request for Australia to accept a group of detainees from Guantanamo Bay for resettlement.
The request is the first by President Barack Obama’s administration, which plans to close down the detention camp in Cuba within the next year.
Media reports have said the request involves a group of Uighurs from China’s largely Muslim western province of Xinjiang. Beijing has reportedly been pressing Washington to return them to China, but US officials have expressed concerns about their likely treatment there.]
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25560251-5005962,00.html
Albania took the last lot of Uighurs, why can’t they take this lot too? (Notice that the Muslim world generally is happy to demand that we take their refugees, but none of them take in any themselves, even their fellow Muslims.)
“Muslim world” is such a joke of a term.
[why can’t they take this lot too?]
Why can’t we? Uighur food is awesome.
Oz why should we?
If they are cleared of any wrong doing and they were brought there by the US and they pose no threat why doesnt the USA just take them???
The US should take them then, but it doesn’t look like they’re going too.
We should take them because we don’t want them to get tortured or jailed in China and immigration + multiculturalism rox.
I can’t see a single downside.
Other than costing the Australian taxpayer a heap of cash to resettle them and give them government handouts.
So if they arent good enough for the US then they arent goo enough for us.
I dont care what would happen to them if they were sent back to China, or what would happen if they were sent to another country or went to the US to live.
IMHO the USA has a responsibility here they took them in and they were ‘innocent’ hence they should take them in and not force them onto other countries.
Detriot should do nicely 🙂
[I can’t see a single downside.]
I can. Hysteria from Turnbull about taking “suspected terrorists”.
And the fairly valid question of why the US can’t take them. After all, they detained them forever without a trial, tortured them, created a farcical military tribunal and still couldn’t find them guilty of anything.
The reason the US won’t allow them in is that they will then be able to sue the US for their detention and treatment at Gmo, which was undoubtedly illeagl under US law.
On balance I think we should take them if no-one else will, although I agree there are risks. They would have to put under fairly strict control orders so that their movements and contacts are restricted.
[The reason the US won’t allow them in is that they will then be able to sue the US for their detention and treatment at Gmo, which was undoubtedly illeagl under US law.]
Tough.
[Tough.]
Well, that’s the reason, and Obama (whom you all welcomed as the great anti-Bush) doesn’t want the Gmo people in the US any more than Bush did. If they can’t go to the US and they can’t go to their countries of origin, they will have to be taken by someone else, and that means the traditional countries of emigration such as Canada and Australia.
Adam we didnt put them in Gitmo, they arent our responsibility.
Obama can get stuffed as far as im concerned and if Bush tried the same thing id have said the same thing too.
Rudd is no fool and he knows the political capital this will give the Libs, so he wont do it thankfully.
Psephos:
[The reason the US won’t allow them in is that they will then be able to sue the US for their detention and treatment at Gmo, which was undoubtedly illeagl under US law.]
I don’t know the rules, but is it not possible (or, more likely, not practical) to sue the US from outside the US?
[Other than costing the Australian taxpayer a heap of cash to resettle them and give them government handouts.]
Yeah Glen, most immigrants are dole bludgers and never contribute to Australia or its economy.
Sick.
Actually, Glen, your government was an active participant in the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is why these people are in Gmo, and Howard supported that to the hilt (remember David Hicks?). So, yes, we are responsible, and now the bill is coming due.
Psephos:
[Well, that’s the reason, and Obama (whom you all welcomed as the great anti-Bush) doesn’t want the Gmo people in the US any more than Bush did.]
More likely, selling it the US public is the problem, rather than any ideological issues.
[I don’t know the rules, but is it not possible (or, more likely, not practical) to sue the US from outside the US?]
I don’t know about that. Maybe it is, maybe it can be prevented. They certainly can’t be stopped from suing once they are in the US.
Glen:
[I dont care what would happen to them if they were sent back to China]
Charming, Glen, just charming. Your humanitarian concerns know no bounds.
[Yeah Glen, most immigrants are dole bludgers and never contribute to Australia or its economy.]
I’ve bloody well posted this thing a billion times.
http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/research/_pdf/migrants-fiscal-impact-april-2008.pdf
See page 31 for the short version.
Shorter version – migration makes us money – even refugees in the long term.
Psephos we didnt capture these men and hand them to the US.
We arent responsible. The US are and they should take them.
So says Glen.
[More likely, selling it the US public is the problem, rather than any ideological issues.]
There’s midterm elections coming up next year and the last thing the Dems want is a Republican scare campaign about letting terrorists loose in your neighbourhood.
[The US are and they should take them.]
The US *should* not have locked them in Gitmo. China *should* not torture and detain political opponents. Unfortunately, the world isn’t ideal.
[Shorter version – migration makes us money – even refugees in the long term.]
I know that. Unfortunately people like Glen will never grasp the idea.
[Psephos we didnt capture these men and hand them to the US.]
How do you know that? You don’t know what the SAS did in Iraq. Maybe we did.
Diog, can we now say that Obama has also thrown the Gitmo people under the bus.
The amigos TOLD you so.
[Charming, Glen, just charming. Your humanitarian concerns know no bounds.]
There is a pattern emerging, a couple of nights ago he wanted everyone in North Korea to be infected with Swine Flu.
[Psephos we didnt capture these men and hand them to the US.]
I imagine who caught who, when and where is classified. It is at least POSSIBLE that some Gitmo detainees were caught by Australian or British, or Canadia troops in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Remember, Bush constantly told us that they had to be held there without charge in order to make the whole world safer, since Australia is part of the world, that must mean they were in there to make Australia safer.
[Why can’t we? Uighur food is awesome.]
#172, not to mention their horse riding skills. they will grace Randwick and flemington nicely
😉
[Diog, can we now say that Obama has also thrown the Gitmo people under the bus.]
Hilliary wouldn’t have done that. Oh no.
GB, Hillary never said “yes, we can”
😆
Geez I’m glad you’re a Liberal Glen. I’d be totally ashamed of anyone who thought like you did and were strong Labor supporters.
I suspect we will take them. Rudd and Obama must have discussed it already and I can’t imagine the US asking when they knew we’d say no. When Bush asked, he knew we’d say no and it was pretty easy to say no to him. Obama’s going to be a lot harder to say no to, and as for Hillary…
So you believe Hilliary would have done something different Finn?
Finns,
Now don’t be too tough on Diogs. He was blinded by the rapture.
However, seeing this story by Albrechtsen claiming Obama as agent of her side and her using throw away sledges like, ” For some on the Left, the Obama presidency may well be a case of what began in tears ends in tears, of a different, more bitter taste”, must induce a degree of indigestion.
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/obama_makes_em_sob_again/
GB, no, but it was Obama that said he would have done something different. and you suckers believe him.
we amigos wanted to believe him, but there was just too many bodies under the bus
😎