The latest fortnightly Newspoll has given the Coalition its best result since the election of the Rudd government, with Labor’s lead at 53-47 – its narrowest since the 52-48 election eve survey, and essentially the same as the actual 52.7-48.3 result. Labor’s primary vote is down two points to 41 per cent, the equal worst result since Kevin Rudd became leader (the other occasion being October last year, shortly after Malcolm Turnbull assumed the Liberal leadership) and solidly below the 43.3 per cent election result. The Coalition primary vote is 40 per cent, the first time this figure has had a four in front of it since the election.
A somewhat different story from Essential Research, which for the second week in a row finds Labor gaining a point on two-party preferred, their lead now at 57-43. Also featured: perceptions of the government’s handling of the financial crisis (good), expectations of Australia’s economic performance over the coming year (mixed but somewhat optimistic), reaction to Joel Fitzgibbon’s resignation (muted), whether the Greens should support the emissions trading scheme legislation (yes, sort of), whether unions should campaign for more industrial relations reforms (ditto), and whether the government is doing enough to support working people (lineball).
UPDATE: Newspoll graphic here. Explanations for Labor’s decline evidently can’t be laid at the feet of the Prime Minister, who has gained two points on approval (58 per cent) and dropped two on disapproval (31 per cent). Interestingly, Malcolm Turnbull’s ratings have continued to rebound: his approval is up a handsome four points to 44 per cent while his disapproval is down three to 37 per cent, his best set of figures since early February. Preferred leader is basically unchanged with Rudd on 57 per cent and Turnbull on 25 per cent (up one).
OK, I get the jist of the fax email-to-fax business. Seems messy, but I suppose in high government levels this would be a requirement. There may be something a lot simpler for dumb pollies that can make use of a simple “Reply All” to send mixed faxes and emails to all on the recipient list. Haven’t used fax myself for literally years. Gave it up as a bad joke.
Now to the second question: was it Grech or Thomas who sent copies to Swan’s fax machine? Oz has answered “Thomas” and that was my impression, but I haven’t read the emails quoted in the Committee hearing by Abetz.
But if it was Thomas who forwarded copies of Grech’s emails to Swan, why did Swan say it was Grech who was the person to do that? This doesn’t make sense to me.
And!
[FORMER treasurer Peter Costello will be offered a Federal Government job – the guardianship of the nation’s $60billion future fund he set up during his 11 years as treasurer.
The Government has earmarked Mr Costello for a board position of The Future Fund if our longest serving treasurer’s shock decision last week not to recontest his Melbourne seat triggers a by-election.]
http://www.smh.com.au/national/labor-offers-costello-job-20090620-cs0k.html
A fake email doesn’t need to be produced from within the Public Service and in fact to do so would reveal the person who faked it and what computer they were using – if all the header info came with it. This is what they didn’t want to show of course – the perpetrator would be immediately fingered – name, time and location.
So a fake email would need to hide its true creator and thus not show all the header information. In which case it doesn’t need to be made inside the PS. It can be made on any computer and even with MSWord.
And if it is a fake you would want it destroyed after being read by the necessary people because you know a search would quickly reveal it as a fake. And it then becomes hard evidence of a criminal act. A faked then destroyed email is only a memory. Hearsay, my word against others denials.
Unfortunately for the scamsters the email was tied to a date – 19th Feb. Rather than Feb or March some time – thus very easy to prove as a fake.
[ FORMER treasurer Peter Costello will be offered a Federal Government job – the guardianship of the nation’s $60billion future fund he set up during his 11 years as treasurer.
The Government has earmarked Mr Costello for a board position of The Future Fund if our longest serving treasurer’s shock decision last week not to recontest his Melbourne seat triggers a by-election.]
Boy that’s smart politics
[This doesn’t make sense to me]
Sorry to quote myself, but I thought of something.
Maybe Thomas was advising Grech that by hitting “Reply All” he was sending a copy to Swan’s fax as well as an email back to Thomas, as Thomas was sending faxes to Swan and emails to Grech, so this would explain how Swan’s fax address got onto the recipient list?
Sorry, but the thing I thought I understood was that it was Thomas doing the forwarding, not Grech (unless Grech did it inadvertently and this was why Thomas advised him of it).
[Now to the second question: was it Grech or Thomas who sent copies to Swan’s fax machine?]
Grech was in charge of the project so he would be the natural person to have sent stuff to Swan and probably did on a regular basis, as would have many others in Treasury it being a standard habit.
It would also be standard practice to CC in anybody who had an interest in the information and it would be preset that way quite often, a distribution list.
I do it all the time, everything I send has a CC to set number of people and whenever they send it on I get a CC back as well. People’s email (electonic fax) boxes are often overflowing.
[Grech was in charge of the project so he would be the natural person to have sent stuff to Swan and probably did on a regular basis, as would have many others in Treasury it being a standard habit.]
No, I’m talking specifically about the email exchange after Grech met with Ford Credit. There were several emails discussing the visit to Ford presented as evidence to the committee on Friday. In them Thomas said he (Thomas) was forwarding the emails to Swan. But today Swan said it was Grech who forwarded the emails to his fax machine by hitting “Reply All”.
These two statements seem to be contradictory. I think Oz noticed this too.
I love this failure of language from Glen Milne:
[THE weight of evidence that has emerged to date in the “Ute-gate” crisis that has consumed the Rudd Government can lead to only one conclusion – Treasurer Wayne Swan has either misled the parliament or come very close to it.]
It can lead to how many conclusions? Sounds like two to me. As Ritchie Benaud used to say, ‘Marvelous!’
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25665800-662,00.html
Both could have happened of course and it wouldn’t be unusual if you know the boss should be sent a copy of something. That is also something that happens a lot in the PS. You receive an email and forward it on to people who you think should get a copy, while others are doing the same as you.
[
jaundiced view
Yes, where did it originate? The Libs have ‘known’ the ’sender’ and ‘recipient’ of the ‘email’ for weeks, if not months. It generated questions in QT from Turnbull week before last (I think), mention by Hockey of Grech in an interview with Oakes weeks ago (per ruawake), and Turnbull’s ‘advice’ at the ball to Charlton on Wednesday. So where did that text Abetz read out come from? It can’t be from an outsider, because they wouldn’t have had been able to make it seem authentic. So, if the author was not in the LNP itself, it was a public servant with Lib sympathies. Can’t see any other possibility. Where else?
]
I hadn’t excluded Liberal sympathisers with youthful high spirits. If that is the case, they may well be learning a lesson.
If it was a public servant, then there may be a legal case to answer.
The issue, as I see it, is a non-issue. The absolute worst case or the Goverment is that one (or two) of their members acted as a parliamentary representative should.
The best case for the opposition is what? The “event” is a non-issue. Even if the Prime Minister had deliberately mislead the House (which I find inconceivable), what was his gain?
While I may lie away at night, dreaming of a tray-top to haul around my meagre possessions, I doubt that *any* current MHR would.
‘Tis fanciful stuff.
To get back to your question, I don’t know the answer, but the best place to look is human frailty. It helps explain all the nonsense that stains perfectly good paper each day.
As for for the beer-related philosophy: one is never too old to learn!
Erm Glen Milne. Either did or didn’t. ‘very close’ = didn’t. Maybe Milne is still mourning the loss of his hero Costello.
Incidentally I loathe email “arse covering” exercises. In the office I was working in until recently, I got into a lot of trouble for just picking up the phone and sorting out a problem between human beings, without the email chain. I thought the “arse cover” was a bad culture to get into, especially as most of the emails would never ever be read again. It was time-wasting red tape to record the steps taken to sort out a thousand dollar problem in a million dollar project.
I can report, however, that my faith in adults being able to get things done without the threat of being dobbed to either of our higher ups was not well received. What I found was that if an email I sent had a cc” in the header, the replies from the other side became much more cautious and qualified, which was anathema to a quick and sensible solution of the core problem.
I guess it’s different in the Public Service.
Swan is either pregnant or almost pregnant. Sums up Milne.
[I think Oz noticed this too.]
I had the same idea as you – maybe Thomas was just informing Gretch that by hitting “reply to all” he was sending a fax to Swan.
But if that’s the case, then Thomas would have been sending stuff to Swan’s fax already for his number to be in the reply field.
Also, I don’t think it’s a case of just printing off emails. Abetz was going on about some number that was apparently Swan’s home fax, but someone had blurred out some digits.
Their are also blind CCs. Copies sent to others but don’t appear in the header.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/rudd-i-insist-the-email-isnt-genuine-20090620-crus.html
[Choosing his words carefully at a press conference in Sydney, Mr Turnbull said he did not have a copy of the email and it had not been composed by anybody in the Opposition. Opposition sources refused to provide evidence to support Mr Turnbull’s assertion that Mr Rudd and Mr Swan had misled Parliament. Mr Turnbull did not respond to The Sun-Herald’s emailed questions about whether he had “proof positive” that Mr Rudd’s office had emailed Treasury lobbying on Mr Grant’s behalf.]
New thread.