The latest Morgan face-to-face survey of 897 respondents was conducted last weekend, at the worst possible time for Labor with respect to “utegate”, and it shows their two-party lead narrowing from 57-43 to 55-45. This is Labor’s weakest showing at a Morgan face-to-face poll since August 2008, a month before Malcolm Turnbull replaced Brendan Nelson as Liberal leader. Their primary vote is down from 48.5 per cent to 46 per cent, while the Coalition’s is up from 38 per cent to 41 per cent. The Greens are up from 7 per cent to 8.5 per cent; for what it’s worth, Family First are down from 2.5 per cent to 1 per cent.
Ah, how perfectly wonderful. Some intelligent political discussion going on, and I particularly want to thank The Finns for the ‘Indfonesians’. Not being awful, Finns, it just made me laugh, at that point.
[Oz, do you have to be so unkind?]
Nope. =P
Tony Abbott taking over the Liberal Leadership in that old fashioned style…and the Ham really suits Mal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EvPvfVOUV8&feature=related
And to bed probably….
Lateline interview is about Iran…
[So what. Not much use really is it, 4.06% of GDP ( which doesn’t include the $1 trillion US dollars spent on the iraq war)]
Well, if you looked at the list I presented above, you would note that China spends MORE in GDP terms than the U.S. on military spending.
However, China spends it on old technologies and on massive standing armies that have nothing to do. The U.S. spends it on spy satellites, undetectable aircraft, and cyber warfare technologies that we don’t know anything about.
[wasted unless it brings an economic advantage, I’d be happy to hear what it is.]
There are lots of technologies that started off as military applications that found useful civilian use, like radar and magnetic tape. The internet and GPS started their lives as U.S. military technologies, I think it would be hard to argue that the internet hasn’t helped the U.S. economy.
So, Lateline is going to do MJ, for those who asked. Iran gets a minor mention. Gusmao a bastard and should go.
That’s it, I suppose.
Do the Indfonesians holiday in Indfanema?
[Lateline interview is about Iran…]
Good. I feared it was going to be about Michael Jackson.
[All countries have their religious nutters, if you don’t believe me spend some time in the deep south of the USA.]
i spent some time in the deep south of Indonesia. It’s very pretty, swaying palm trees, paddy field terraces, water buffaloes, and rambutan trees.
You think so, negotiations with Turkey have been going on for over twenty years because they have taken longer than others to fall into line, but in they end they will, just as all the other countries who have joined have.
Military force only breeds resentment.
[Military force only breeds resentment.]
That’s funny, France spends more on defence than Australia. France and the U.K. both have nuclear weapons, and they are in the E.U.
I have to give you that one.
[Oz, do you have to be so unkind?]
Not to mention stupid.
I don’t think Australia is aiming to become a super power.
Hah, you want religious nutters, try Indiana. Major university town of 15 thousand people usually, swells to about 60 thousand in term time. How many “churches”?
Ah, Lateline does the demise of Grocerywatch after 20 minutes of MJ and his demise.
[I don’t think Australia is aiming to become a super power.]
If you saw the National Press Club address this week, Paul Dibb and Hugh White both argued that we need to have a debate now about how reliant we want to be on the U.S. in the future.
White in particular said that if we think China and the U.S. are going to fight over power in our region in 20 or 30 years time, then Australia will have to spend more on defence to achieve greater self reliance. So instead of spending 2.4% of GDP, we will need to spend 3% so we an get more air craft and submarines, and the associated crew.
White argues that if we stay spending 2.4% for the next decade or more, then effectively our military will be like New Zealand’s, we will be almost completely reliant on other countries to protect us, except unlike New Zealand, we have a gigantic land mass to defend.
OK, a quiet night, so… some trivia
Today is the anniversary of the death of a racing driver with the unfortunate name of
‘Dick seaman’.
Born to a wealthy family in the United Kingdom in 1913, Dick was drawn to the european racing scene in the interwar years and was eventually employed by Nazi backed Mercedes benz team in the late 1930s.
He famously returned a Nazi salute to Hitler after winning a European grand prix in 1938 and later married the daughter of the head of BMW. His English family disowned him as a result
He crashed and burned at Spa in the wet just a few months before wwII started, slamming his Merc against a tree where it burst into flames. (There are photos on the net). He was left in the flames until a Belgian policeman with rather large cojenes couldn’t stand to watch and calmly walked up to the burning wreck and freed the Englishman.
Dick Seaman lived for a few more hours after the accident, during which he was reportedly compos mentis. He apologised to his wife in advance for not being able to attent the cinema with her that evening. He also accepted blame for the accident, saying his driving line was suitable for a dry race and he should have backed off when conditions had deterioated.
The Belgian policeman’s fate is not available on the internet sources.
I am reminded of this week’s saga of Godwin Grech and malcolm turnbull, although which is which is hard to say
[I don’t think Australia is aiming to become a super power.]
France and the U.K. aren’t superpowers either. They are nuclear powers, but the only superpower is the United States.
[mfarnsworthTake a lesson from Thomas More – http://tinyurl.com/klarox – Dennis Shanahan completes a week of bracing analysis of Mr. Turnbull.18 minutes ago from TweetDeck ]
We can’t beat china and we can’t beat the USA, so who exactly are we going to beat up, oh that’s right,when you want a boogy man you call up the Indonesians.
there is nothing like snuggle up in bed and bloggin’ on your mobile. you should try it sometimes. 😆
[We can’t beat china and we can’t beat the USA, so who exactly are we going to beat up, oh that’s right,when you want a boogy man you call up the Indonesians.]
Be honest, we have no idea what the world will be like in 20 or 30 years. Indonesia is a country with an overwhelmingly moderate Muslim populace, but how do we know it will always be like that?
Surely it would be prudent for us to plan our military spending and structure on the possibility, however remote, that a nationalist regime takes power in Indonesia? I am not saying it is going to happen, but I think it would be wrong for our policy makers to just pretend it isn’t a possibility.
Also, if we shift away from the U.S. to a closer alliance with China, then we have the same questions, we would need a military capable of greater self reliance. So the rise of China has implications for us as well.
And to fully complete the circle I will point out that France and the UK are part of an economic entity that is expanding it’s borders, the US is not; not much use being a super power, is it.
Ya, and the beat goes on. It just might be smarter to spend one of the billions on closer economic ties. It might help our and their economy and improve the standard of living of all.
fredn, what century are you living in? The days when powers aspired to “expand their borders” ended in 1945, at the latest. The US enjoys unchallenged world hegemony with the same borders it had in 1938, when its armed forces were smaller than Portugal’s. Have you heard of ICBMs, nuclear submarines, satellites? The also has enormous economic power, gained without annexing any territory since the Spanish-American War.
[And to fully complete the circle I will point out that France and the UK are part of an economic entity that is expanding it’s borders, the US is not; not much use being a super power, is it.]
1) The fact UK and France is in the E.U. is terrible for Australia, because it makes it harder for Australia to sell things to France and the U.K.
2) Why on earth does the U.S. need to expand its borders? Why is that inherently good? Germany expanded its borders when Hitler was in power, was that good? Saddam Hussein tried to do the same when he was in power, was that good?
[Ya, and the beat goes on. It just might be smarter to spend one of the billions on closer economic ties. It might help our and their economy and improve the standard of living of all.]
I’ll tell you want would ensure Australians have a lower standard of living, if a country invades us and we can’t defend ourselves. When Darwin was bombed we required the assistance of the U.S. What I am proposing is that if the U.S. is too busy having arguments with China, then Australia needs to be more self reliant.
[Not to mention stupid.]
Your dreamy obsession with the miracle of democracy in India demonstrate a really deep misunderstanding about the variety of factors that influence the process.
This is but one example:
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/democracy-corrupted-voters-sell-their-vote-in-india/87142-37.html
A study done by the Centre for Media Studies in Delhi involving surveying 41,000 voters found that 22% of Indians had taken bribes in exchange for their votes and the figure was 37% among those living below the poverty line.
[The days when powers aspired to “expand their borders” ended in 1945, at the latest. The US enjoys unchallenged world hegemony with the same borders it had in 1938, when its armed forces were smaller than Portugal’s. Have you heard of ICBMs, nuclear submarines, satellites?]
Why ignore hundreds of military and spy bases across the globe?
As someone with the ability to fly on either an Australian or New Zealand passport, the latter is far more preferable, mainly due to the absolute p*ss weak status of NZ’s military arsenal. In fact, when you fly into Charles de Gaulle and whip out the old Kupu Whakataki (wot?), the locals kiss your ar*se.
It’s rather a pleasant feeling. Not that the K Ones could survive without the ANZUS treaty – just saying.
[It’s rather a pleasant feeling. Not that the K Ones could survive without the ANZUS treaty – just saying.]
The U.S. has no ANZUS treaty obligations to New Zealand. The only way it will change that policy is if Key over turns the ban on nuclear subs.
There is one simply way to avoid being f’d in future…nuclear weapons then nobody will mess with us…but it may piss off the Indons and the Reds mind….
[There is one simply way to avoid being f’d in future…nuclear weapons then nobody will mess with us…but it may piss off the Indons and the Reds mind….]
This would be the worst idea of all. If Australia gets nuclear weapons, how would we be able to complain about North Korea or Iran or Indonesia getting nuclear weapons?
If Indonesia gets nuclear weapons, then what is the point of Australia having nuclear weapons?
[The U.S. has no ANZUS treaty obligations to New Zealand. The only way it will change that policy is if Key over turns the ban on nuclear subs.]
realistically tho, the usa would come to NZ’s aid if a ‘clear and present danger existed’
regardless of a ban on nuke subs
It wouldn’t have to. Obama may just tell Key to call us.
[This would be the worst idea of all. If Australia gets nuclear weapons, how would we be able to complain about North Korea or Iran or Indonesia getting nuclear weapons?
If Indonesia gets nuclear weapons, then what is the point of Australia having nuclear weapons?]
I apply your undeniably sound logic to nuke power as well
😉
ShowsOn
If the Indons ever go for nukes then we should immediately…it would create an imbalance…
Firstly we’ll never stop NKorea’s nukes unless we finish the job we started in the 1950s, unlikely…hence with Nukes, China and Indonesia would never think about messing with us in the future…
There is a reason why countries with nukes dont fight each other it’s called MAD 😀
mutually assured destruction is a good idea is it?
[If the Indons ever go for nukes then we should immediately…it would create an imbalance…]
No, Australia and the U.S. should talk to the Indonesian and convince them not to get them. Again Glen, if Australia gets nuclear weapons, then all the unstable regimes in the middle east will be able to get them too, and Australia will be in no position to argue against it.
[There is a reason why countries with nukes dont fight each other it’s called MAD ]
That only worked when there were two super powers with thousands of nukes capable of destroying the planet. Those two countries are currently dismantling their nuclear arsenals.
The more nuclear weapons there are in the world, the less safe it will be. That is the rationale we use when telling North Korea and Iran to stop their enrichment programs, and it should apply to us as well.
[It wouldn’t have to. Obama may just tell Key to call us.]
Umm if the shaggers were under imminent attack i think we would already be involved and therefore the US would be dragged in as well.
Shows, are you saying Australia would desert NZ in its hour of need? Who would we have to whinge about then?
This is completely ignoring the fact that the only threat to NZ is from some rogue seal/penguin/hagfish robohybrid, of course. And you can never discount that possibility.
back up guys. do you think mutually assured destruction is a good idea?
[Umm if the shaggers were under imminent attack i think we would already be involved and therefore the US would be dragged in as well.]
So that means Australia’s future military policy should be based around having to defend both Australia and New Zealand? That means more subs, more aircraft, and some aircraft criers.
Shows On
I think you are underestimating China esp in regard to GDP per capita. China’s low GDP per capita is low partly for the same reason its gdp growth is so high. Demographics. The one child policy has not fully stabilized China’s population yet. As china’s population starts to resemble a typical MDC its GDp per capita will increase greatly as there will not be significantly more people than well paying jobs. The rise of Chinese brands such as Hisense and the wealth funds are reducing its capital flight which is better quality growth than simply being the worlds cheap labor.
Don’t underestimate the Chinese!
[back up guys. do you think mutually assured destruction is a good idea?]
Glen does, because he is extrapolating for one very specific example – the cold war – to other examples that aren’t the same.
I believe that more nuclear weapons means the world is less safe.
[back up guys. do you think mutually assured destruction is a good idea?]
No
but it sort of evolved from the ‘arms race’ period and could be expressed as the point where demand (warmongers) meets supply (total extermination)
[Don’t underestimate the Chinese!]
I certainly don’t underestimate the Chinese, but nor do I think its economy will double in size each decade. Eventually its political structure will be a drag on its economy.
I think NZ will take care of the aircraft criers. They’re good at that.
[So that means Australia’s future military policy should be based around having to defend both Australia and New Zealand? That means more subs, more aircraft, and some aircraft criers]
No No no
It means that I recognise the deep ties ie constitutional,historical etc , that make the soveriegnty of NZ intrinsically entwined to Australia, regardless of the latest vogues